ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Railway Stations

James Gray: How many new railway stations have been opened since privatisation; and how many further stations are planned in the future.

Patrick McLoughlin: Since May 1996, 56 stations in England and Wales have been opened. Local authorities, passenger transport executives, devolved bodies and Transport for London lead on the planning and promotion of stations. We are aware of about 40 stations which are being considered for opening by these bodies in England and Wales.

James Gray: The mayor of Bristol has recently announced ambitious plans that would include the reopening of Corsham station, a project for which many of us have campaigned for many years, ably led for much of his 31 years as a councillor by Councillor Peter Davis. Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are to get people off the roads and on to trains, we must do all that we can to make the mayor’s vision of a reopened Corsham station a reality?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing to my attention the excellent work that has been done by Councillor Davis in his constituency for a very long time. I am also aware of my hon. Friend’s campaigning efforts in relation to stations in his area. He will be aware that bids are being considered under the new stations fund, and I hope to make an announcement shortly.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have been informed that the microphones are not working. I am sure that the Minister will make himself heard.

Nick Smith: Why are the Government not more committed to railway infrastructure? According to the National Audit Office in the 2010 spending review, they cut planned spending on rail by £1,287 million.

Patrick McLoughlin: This Government are very committed to infrastructure, as demonstrated by our investment plans for electrification and other rail projects. We have committed to doing more in five years than the Labour Government did in 13. We have a very ambitious programme. There are 808 recommendations.

Charles Hendry: As a result of this investment programme, my constituents can now travel from a beautiful new station in Uckfield to the increasingly impressive station at London Bridge. Will my right hon. Friend look again at the availability of diesel rolling stock, so my constituents can have the same comfort on their journeys as they have at the stations?

Patrick McLoughlin: Of course I am always prepared to listen to representations made by my hon. Friend on matters such as rolling stock. The new station at Uckfield is indeed fantastic, and I am aware that there is a huge amount going on at London Bridge.

Heidi Alexander: The stations that my constituents in south-east London would like to see opened are a Bakerloo line station at Lewisham and a docklands light railway station at Catford. Those, of course, would also require major extensions to existing lines. Will the Minister tell me what planning if any is being carried out by his Department and Transport for London about the longer-term strategic transport needs in this part of London?

Patrick McLoughlin: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I can reassure her that all these matters are being looked at closely by Boris Johnson, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority.

High Speed Rail

Kris Hopkins: What recent progress has been made on high speed rail; and if he will make a statement.

Patrick McLoughlin: In January this year, I announced my initial route and station options for phase two, from Birmingham to Leeds and Birmingham to Manchester. I intend to launch the consultation this year, earlier than previously planned. I have also set out my intention to secure the authority for departmental expenditure on HS2 phase 2 by way of a paving Bill, when parliamentary time is available.

Kris Hopkins: I am delighted that the Government have pledged to deliver HS2. Can my right hon. Friend give a further commitment to ensure that the financial benefits flowing from the pre-construction phase will be felt along the length of the line, particularly among firms in west Yorkshire, which are ready, willing and very able to assist?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Last week I made a trip to the north-east talking to a number of companies. I am aware that many companies up there and in other places along the route are interested in, and prepared to be involved, in all phases of HS2. It is a beneficial project for the whole United Kingdom
	and I can assure my hon. Friend that we will be looking at ways to involve British business in all aspects of the HS2 programme.

Tristram Hunt: The updated case for HS2 involves significant downgrading of provision and a collapse of existing services to Stoke-on-Trent so that Milton Keynes can have its high-speed service. How does this help rebalance the economy and why is my constituency being disadvantaged by HS2?

Patrick McLoughlin: Two weeks ago, I met representatives from Stoke, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stafford. I welcome all views, and we will take a final decision on the route after the full consultation. The hon. Gentleman should be a bit more enthusiastic about such things.

Cheryl Gillan: If HS2 goes ahead, it will do significant damage to our Buckinghamshire constituencies and the Chilterns designated area of outstanding natural beauty. We need the best environmental protection. Will the Secretary of State undertake to consider carefully this document I have with me? It is the Buckinghamshire mitigation plan, which has been painstakingly produced and endorsed by all our councils in Buckinghamshire, our business leaders and organisations, and it is intended to form the basis of a constructive and positive outlook for HS2.

Patrick McLoughlin: I had better be careful how I answer my right hon. Friend. I will study the document she has given to me and ask for it to be studied by officials in my Department. We will do all we can to minimise damage in her area.

Maria Eagle: The Opposition firmly support HS2, but we want it delivered. It is therefore worrying that the Government’s mid-term review referred not to enacting, but to “carrying forward legislation”, even though the Secretary of State’s departmental plan continues to claim Royal Assent will be secured by May 2015. Will he confirm that, with all the dither and delay, botched consultations and judicial reviews, the hybrid Bill is still on track to secure Royal Assent in this Parliament?

Patrick McLoughlin: This Government will have achieved far more in five years to build high-speed rail in this country than the previous Government did in 13. All I would say is that we are still on target to meet our aims by the end of this year. As to its progress once it is before Parliament, I really cannot say any more at this stage.

Maria Eagle: The Secretary of State has introduced some confusion, because we are meant to have two Bills. One is paving legislation, which we have not seen and we do not know what it does, and the second is the hybrid Bill that he said would be completed in this Parliament. He should be clear what Bills he will introduce and when. Which Bill will he introduce: a measure simply to give the impression of action or the hybrid Bill that we need if this vital scheme is ever to be built?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am pleased to have the Opposition’s support in bringing HS2 to fruition. The simple point is that a paving Bill will deal with certain financial responsibilities. I am happy to discuss the details further with her. The hybrid Bill—the measure that seeks planning approval—is still on course to be introduced by the end of the year.

Speed Limits

Michael Ellis: What progress he has made on devolving speed limits to local authorities.

Norman Baker: In January 2013 the Department for Transport launched new guidance for local authorities on setting local speed limits, including guidance to help them assess the full costs and benefits of proposed speed limit changes. We have also taken steps to make it easier for councils to introduce 20 mph limits and zones where they believe this is appropriate.

Michael Ellis: Many of my constituents would like to see 20 mph speed limits, particularly near schools and in sensitive areas. Will the Minister explain what is being done to adapt the localism agenda and give local authorities in Northamptonshire and elsewhere the devolved power in this respect?

Norman Baker: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support and that of his constituents for what the coalition Government is doing. Following on from the document “Signing the Way”, which I launched in October 2011, we have provided every English authority with a traffic sign authorisation to use speed limit repeater signs in place of physical measures in 20 mph zones, and that will reduce the costs for local authorities in Northamptonshire and elsewhere. This authorisation also enables local authorities to place advisory part-time 20 mph speed limit signs in the vicinity of schools without the need for central Government approval. Councils can also now use roundels on the road to replace some upright signs.

Barry Sheerman: Many of us involved in transport safety welcome the ability to have 20 mph limits, but if they are not done in the context of targets for national performance, they will come to nothing in terms of reducing terrible road casualties, which are rising steadily in this country. Most other progressive transport safety countries have targets and they work. Why is he abandoning them?

Norman Baker: If I may say so, the important thing is the measures we take to make roads safer, rather than the arbitrary targets that the hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce. The Secretary of State has made plain, since his appointment to office, the significant importance that he attaches to road safety, and that runs through the Department.

Jim Fitzpatrick: A previous coalition Secretary of State suggested that an increase in 20 mph zones could be a trade-off with 80 mph limits on some of our motorways. Doing a U-turn at 80 mph would be crazy and dangerous; may
	I invite the Minister to do a U-turn here safely, and formally announce that the coalition will not proceed with 80 mph trials?

Norman Baker: I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point. The matters about 80 mph are being carefully evaluated and the Secretary of State will make a statement on that in due course.

Great Western Rail Franchise

George Eustice: What steps his Department is taking to secure an operator for the Great Western rail franchise.

Rob Wilson: What steps his Department is taking to secure an operator for the Great Western rail franchise.

Simon Burns: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced that we would not continue with the paused Great Western competition. He also confirmed that the Department would enter negotiations with First Great Western to secure arrangements for a further two and a half years, to September 2015. These negotiations are now in progress.

George Eustice: My right hon. Friend will be aware that under the original tender document there was much concern in Cornwall about the potential for the number of through services to be reduced, and that there are local ambitions to expand the use of the branch lines. Can he assure the House that those services will at the very least be protected at the current levels for the next couple of years?

Simon Burns: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and I am delighted to be able to tell him that during the period of the extension we will maintain today’s number of daily through services from London to Cornwall. The Truro to Falmouth service will remain at today’s levels and will no longer have to be funded by Cornwall county council, but through the high-level output specification intervention. The option for additional services on the St. Ives to Penzance branch from May 2014, subject to rolling stock availability, will be carried forward in this period.

Rob Wilson: My Reading East constituents, many of whom commute into London using the Great Western route, continually raise issues of service and cost of travel. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the voices of the regular passengers will be listened to during the franchising process and that the interests and service needs of passengers will be fully reflected in the final franchising contract?

Simon Burns: Again, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As the House will know, he has done tremendous work fighting for his constituents through the work he did securing funding for the improvements to Reading station and the London-Heathrow spur for the Great Western line. I reassure him that when the Secretary of State makes his announcement in the spring about the future progress of the franchising programme, all franchises will be
	extremely mindful of the needs of passengers, including those on the Reading line, as we approach any successor franchise arrangements, and we are committed to working with the industry to reduce costs and to take into account the needs and requirements of passengers.

Kerry McCarthy: Passengers in the Bristol area are desperate to see an improvement to services on the Great Western line, particularly with regard to the issue of overcrowding. If people have paid for a seat, they should not expect to have to stand on an almost daily basis. Can the Minister assure me that the issue of capacity will be addressed in the franchise negotiations, and that there will be extra rolling stock on the line?

Simon Burns: Yes, I would like to give some assurance to the hon. Lady. When franchises come up for the next stage of the process, we want to ensure that all passenger requirements, as well as the ability of companies to provide a first-class service to passengers, are considered fully.

Fiona Mactaggart: The problem is that ever since the merger of Thames trains with First Great Western to form that franchise, the interests of commuters using the Great Western line have not sufficiently been addressed. We have the most crowded trains. In Slough, the service is slower than it used to be and there are fewer fast trains. What can the Minister do in the next two and a half years to improve the service for commuters on this line?

Simon Burns: I can tell the hon. Lady that we are certainly looking at that and will continue do so, although I do not imagine that she was making those points in this House when the franchise was put together by her Government.

Adrian Sanders: Is there not now a wonderful opportunity in this impasse to make sure any future franchise will ensure that the second-largest urban conurbation in the far south-west will retain direct rail services to London?

Simon Burns: The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue on a number of occasions, and I understand fully why he does so. This is certainly an issue that can be considered when any future franchise bid is being prepared.

Road Building

Robert Halfon: What progress he is making on road building and new motorway junction schemes.

Stephen Hammond: The Government are investing £3.3 billion in major schemes, with £0.9 billion announced at spending review 10 to complete the existing eight schemes, seven of which have been completed. At spending round 10, £1.4 billion was announced for 14 new schemes to start by 2015, and that is 100% on schedule. The autumn statements of 2011 and 2012 announced a further £655 million and £395 million for new schemes.

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend will be aware that Harlow needs desperately a new junction on the M11, which will unlock 3,000 new jobs in the town. The scheme is now backed by Harlow council and Essex council, which say that it is the No. 1 priority for the region. Will the Minister meet me, the council and the local enterprise partnership to look seriously at the plans, especially as they will be funded by developer contributions?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend is a well-known and renowned campaigner on behalf of his constituency, and he makes the case again today. I am sure he is working with the relevant local authority, the local enterprise partnership and the enterprise zone to drive up and ensure that the business case is complete. I am, of course, happy to meet him and discuss the proposal.

Clyde Coastguard Station

Katy Clark: What assessment he has made of the effect of the closure of Clyde coastguard station.

Stephen Hammond: Clyde maritime rescue co-ordination centre was closed on 18 December 2012. The sea and coastal areas that were formerly the responsibility of Clyde are now being covered by the centres at Stornoway and Belfast. There has been no change to front-line services. The professional coastguard officers at those centres are maintaining the provision of a search and rescue co-ordination service to the highest standards, and those are the standards that the public rightly demands and expects.

Katy Clark: The Minister will be aware that the staffing levels at Clyde fell below risk-assessed levels on a number of occasions in the lead-up to the closure. We found out this week that the staffing levels at Belfast, which has taken over its work, fell below risk-assessed levels on 28 days and 55 nights in December and January. Will the Minister agree to meet me and other interested MPs, given the genuine concerns about the safety of the west coast of Scotland, huge cuts to staffing and the loss of local knowledge?

Stephen Hammond: First, let me say that there has been no loss of local knowledge. The pairing arrangements that were put in place show that, as does the incident at Loch Fyne. There were 40 occasions in December and 43 in January when the Belfast staffing numbers were below the risk assessment level, but the hon. Lady will know that that was obviously mitigated by the ability of the Stornoway station to take that up. I am happy to meet her to discuss those matters.

Alan Reid: As my hon. Friend knows, the main concern when the Clyde coastguard station was closed was to ensure that local knowledge was transferred to staff at Belfast and Stornoway. What monitoring has been carried out to ensure that that knowledge was transferred?

Stephen Hammond: Since the closure at Clyde, local geographical knowledge has been retained and improved, principally in the new management structure of the
	volunteer coastguard rescue service. Strong relationships and the working arrangements prior to the closure ensured that knowledge was transferred. Of course my hon. Friend will be aware of the new, improved mapping technology that is being put in place at the new co-ordination centres.

Louise Ellman: A number of hon. Members have raised the issue of Clyde, and I share the concerns about having the appropriate number of staff available, staff morale in the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the application of local knowledge to saving lives under the new structure. When the Minister looks at the specific situation of Clyde, will he also look at any possible ramifications for other coastguard closures?

Stephen Hammond: I give the assurance, as I gave the hon. Lady’s Select Committee, that we will ensure that local knowledge is transferred post-closure through the pairing arrangements that are in place prior to a closure. I intend to ensure that if there are any lessons to be learned, we learn them so that that local knowledge is passed on.

Stansted Airport

Alan Haselhurst: When he expects to meet the new owners of Stansted Airport.

Patrick McLoughlin: I have no immediate plans to meet the new owners of Stansted airport, as the sale has not yet been completed. However, I have no doubt that effective working relationships established between my Department and the airport will continue under its new owners, and I look forward to meeting the management team at an appropriate time in the future.

Alan Haselhurst: What assurances can my right hon. Friend give to Manchester Airports Group, which will shortly be taking charge at Stansted, about improved train journey times from Liverpool Street to the airport, over and above the welcome but insufficient addition of the third track between Tottenham Hale and Angel Road?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the acknowledgement that the third track will make a difference to the areas he mentioned. Obviously, we are always willing to discuss with airport operators how best to improve infrastructure connections, and I will be more than happy to do that once the new ownership arrangements are finally in place.

Jim Shannon: rose—

Mr Speaker: Exclusively on the matter of Stansted airport, Mr Jim Shannon.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his response about Stansted airport. Obviously the sale of any airport in the United Kingdom, for example, Belfast international airport alongside Stansted airport, would cause uncertainty to the workers. Will he confirm that the sale of any
	airport in the United Kingdom, be it Stansted or Belfast international, would be a matter that the Government would look after for the workers?

Mr Speaker: I fear I was too generous.

Patrick McLoughlin: Let me address the issue of Stansted airport. I am pleased that the Stansted sale has taken place, as it brings competition into the airport system, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) has supported and advocated that for some time. As for the hon. Gentleman’s point about wider airports, obviously every case has to be looked at individually by the proper authorities.

New Railway Stations

Robin Walker: What progress his Department has made on funding new railway stations.

Simon Hart: What progress his Department has made on funding new railway stations.

Norman Baker: In the last two years, funding has been allocated for six new stations on the rail network in England, either from the major local transport schemes budget or the local sustainable transport fund. In addition, in July 2012 we announced a new stations fund to help local authorities implement schemes in England and Wales that are ready to proceed.

Robin Walker: I am very grateful for that reply and excited about the potential of the new stations fund. The Minister will be aware of long-standing plans for a Worcestershire parkway station and the strong support for that from our county council, residents and businesses. Will he take account of the compelling case for investment in that project and continue to encourage train operating companies to examine how they could increase passenger numbers by stopping there?

Norman Baker: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we have been working closely with Worcestershire county council as it develops its plans for a new parkway station. I understand that the council has submitted a bid for funding from the new stations fund for a station on the Worcester-Oxford line. That was one of 14 bids received within the deadline and it will of course be carefully evaluated.

Simon Hart: In September 2011, the then Secretary of State confirmed that the leasehold ownership of stations would be transferred to the train operators. That will obviously make a big difference to regular train users and, in my part of the world, to tourists as well. As this is Wales tourism week, will the Minister update the House on how he is getting on with that?

Norman Baker: I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for that initiative. He might know that the Greater Anglia franchise, which commenced in February 2011, transferred the leasehold of the stations concerned to the new franchisee, Abellio. The approach was also
	included in the now-cancelled inter-city west coast franchise, as well as the Essex Thameside franchise competition, which is now under way. The arrangements in other franchises are being considered as part of the ongoing development work, but we certainly think that this direction of travel is worth supporting.

Nick Raynsford: The Minister might be aware of the ceremony that was held yesterday evening to mark the completion of the construction of the station box at Woolwich on the Crossrail line, and its handover from Berkeley Homes to Crossrail. He might also be aware that agreement has not yet been reached on the detailed funding arrangements for the fit-out. Will he ensure that his Department works closely with the Greater London authority, Transport for London, Berkeley Homes and all the other relevant parties to ensure that agreement is reached quickly, so that this important station can be completed?

Norman Baker: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that remains a priority for the Department. We are working closely with the relevant parties to which he refers with a view to reaching completion as soon as possible.

Alison McGovern: Will the Minister clarify how much funding for new stations has been made available over recent years in the south-east of England compared with the north-west of England, and will he support increased investment in new stations, specifically in Merseyside and, even more specifically, along the Wrexham to Bidston line that passes through my constituency?

Norman Baker: I think the hon. Lady should be very pleased with the level of transport investment that the Government has committed to, particularly rail investment. In the north-west area, for example, the northern hub is being funded in its entirety. We are also seeing investment in new and reopened lines such as the Oxford-Bedford line, in redoubled lines such as the Swindon-Kemble line, and in new stations across the country—including in Teesside, Warwickshire, West Yorkshire and Coventry—six of which have already been opened. We have seen investment right across England that will proceed right through Network Rail’s current plan, and I hope that she will welcome that.

Quality Bus Contracts

Bill Esterson: What assessment he has made of quality bus contracts; and if he will make a statement.

Norman Baker: The bus quality contract provision is one of the tools available to local transport authorities that wish to have more say over the way in which bus services are run. Two integrated transport authorities, in Tyne and Wear and West Yorkshire, have consulted informally on their plans for quality contract schemes, and I await developments with interest. In the meantime, I am concentrating on the benefits that partnership working between local authorities and bus companies
	can bring to bus services for passengers. On Tuesday, I announced that Sheffield would become the first better bus area and published guidance to help other places to bid for the same status.

Bill Esterson: Sir Brian Souter has said that he would rather take poison than enter a quality contract. Is it not the reality that bus operators would rather maximise their profits than look after the interests of the travelling public? Should not the priority be to improve bus services, rather than to put more money into the pockets of the bus operators?

Norman Baker: Running a company well is a way of helping bus passengers. If a company does not look after its passengers, its services will suffer as a consequence, so I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise. Brian Souter has contributed a great deal to the development of bus services in this country, and that fact should be widely recognised by all. The hon. Gentleman should also recognise that legislation is on the statute book, and that Brian Souter is subject to that legislation, as is everybody else in this country.

Yvonne Fovargue: With bus fares rising at twice the rate of inflation, why have the Government rigged the rules for the better bus area funding against transport authorities that adopt a quality contract, so that they can set bus fares, as has happened in London? Instead of always caving in to the private bus companies, why does the Minister not stand up for passengers for once?

Norman Baker: Again, I do not accept the premise of the question. The Department for Transport has been championing the needs of bus passengers very firmly since this Government took office. We have introduced a whole range of new funding streams, as well as better bus areas, money for the smart card roll-out and the fourth round of the green bus fund. We have also made huge investments in bus corridors in Manchester, Bristol and elsewhere. This is all designed to help passengers, so I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s premise is simply wrong. In regard to better bus areas and quality contracts, I advise her to study the guidance that I issued earlier this week.

East Coast Main Line

Hugh Bayley: When the Government plan to announce the timetable for bids for the franchise to run rail services on the east coast main line.

Simon Burns: A further announcement about the franchising programme will be made in the spring by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, setting out the timetable for future franchise competitions.

Hugh Bayley: My constituents and others who need to use east coast rail services twice faced hiatus when two private operators collapsed. The public sector operator, East Coast, currently running the services contributed twice as much money to the Treasury in its last year than its predecessor National Express did in 2008-09. Before the Government announce their franchising schedule
	will they look at the feasibility of running a public sector franchise on the east coast for a period to compare like for like with a private franchise on the west coast to resolve the issue?

Simon Burns: However charming the hon. Gentleman is, I am afraid that he is not going to tease out of me in advance what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce on future timetabling in the spring this year. That would be completely inappropriate, and I know the hon. Gentleman, an experienced parliamentarian, will fully understand that.

Martin Vickers: I welcome the plans for the new franchise on the east coast main line and hope that they will include the reinstatement of the direct service between King’s Cross and Cleethorpes. Ministers will be aware, however, that the biggest problem facing my constituents at the moment is gaining access to any service on the east coast main line due to the landslip between Scunthorpe and Doncaster. First TransPennine is looking at alternative routes for its service to Manchester, but access to London and the south is extremely difficult. Will Ministers use their influence to ensure that East Midlands Trains improves its service to Newark North Gate in the interim?

Simon Burns: I fully appreciate the problems that my hon. Friend’s and other hon. Members’ constituents face due to this unfortunate act of nature. As my hon. Friend will be aware, all is being done by all the relevant authorities and train operators to seek to minimise the disruption to passengers during this difficult time and to expedite the repair and restoration of the track. I fear that it is going to take some time because of the sheer scale of the problem. I fully take on board my hon. Friend’s point and will pass his comments to Network Rail and the rail operators to see what more can possibly be done to try to alleviate the problems.

Topical Questions

Mark Tami: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Patrick McLoughlin: At the end of January, I was pleased to be able to announce to the House the preferred route for phase 2 of HS2. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform Britain’s connectivity, capacity and competitiveness. Last year, we announced the creation of a £20 million new station fund to be used to open new stations in England and Wales. I launched the competition in January, and I very much hope to make an announcement by the end of March on which stations have been successful. We have also received a large number of bids for the £170 million local pinch-point funds, the applications for which closed last week. We hope to make an announcement shortly.

Mark Tami: Can the Secretary of State update the House on any talks he has had with the transport Minister in Wales about the electrification of the Wrexham-Bidston line? When does he finally hope to make progress and when can we finally have a station that serves the Deeside industrial estate?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am due to meet the Minister in Wales shortly to discuss a number of issues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s point will be one of the particular issues we discuss. We have made major announcements about electrification in Wales. I realise that it affects south Wales, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think it a move in the right direction.

Karl McCartney: Lincoln finally has one daily direct service to London despite being promised seven up-and-down daily links at the 2010 general election. Will the Minister assure me that when the new franchise is put out to tender, my constituents will see an expansion of direct daily services and weekend services, as we are well aware of the need for our expanding city to enjoy as many rail links to the capital as other cities across our nation?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend now serves on the Select Committee, and will therefore be well able to keep an eye on these matters. We are always being asked for extra services, but I assure him that I am well aware of the case for Lincoln, especially in the light of the important celebrations that will take place next year. I will certainly consider it, and will judge it in the context of all the other opportunities that we have, and requests that we receive, for the provision of extra services.

Stephen Timms: Does the Secretary of State agree that, following the interconnection between High Speed 1 and High Speed 2, we will need a greater capacity and three trains per hour?

Patrick McLoughlin: At least the hon. Gentleman is consistent. As I have said on several occasions, I will consider what he has said and try to ensure that we provide that connectivity. There is also the question of trains running directly from Old Oak Common to the continent, which we will need to judge as we judge all other matters relating to high-speed rail.

Alan Reid: Rail passengers trying to book the cheapest fares are faced with a bewilderingly complex system. I hope that the fares and ticketing review will result in a much more simple, straightforward system. Can my hon. Friend tell me what progress is being made towards that?

Norman Baker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. We are determined that, as a result of the fares and ticketing review, people will be able to buy the tickets for the journeys that they want at the lowest price for those journeys, rather than paying over the odds, which I am afraid they sometimes do today.

Natascha Engel: Was an upgrade of the current midland main line service considered as a cheaper, faster and far less destructive alternative to the building of a new London to Leeds HS2 route? If not, why not?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I announced in my statement on the subject, HS2 is also about capacity. We are upgrading the line to which the hon. Lady referred, and I hope that its electrification during the period between 2014 and 2019 will benefit her constituents.

Kris Hopkins: There are several large haulage companies in and around my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that the HGV Road Users Levy Bill, which is due to receive Royal Assent, constitutes an important step towards the provision of a level playing field for British hauliers, and is long overdue?

Stephen Hammond: I do agree with my hon. Friend. This will be the first occasion on which the United Kingdom has charged those who come from overseas for their use of our roads. The levy will help to maintain the competitive position of UK hauliers, and to maintain the UK’s roads. There was a long-standing desire in the House for the legislation to be passed, and I am delighted that we were able to secure its passage.

Mark Lazarowicz: Two years ago, the UK Government announced that they would spend £50 million on the provision of new stock on the Caledonian sleeper to Scotland, and that the Scottish Government would match that with a further £50 million. It now appears that only £50 million will be made available, rather than £100 million, and that it will be spent partly on improving existing stock and partly on upgrading other railway lines in Scotland. What has happened to the funds that were promised by the UK and Scottish Governments?

Simon Burns: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) keeps quiet, she will hear my answer. It is the same answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) when he raised the issue. We provided the money so that it could be invested in that service, but the Scottish Government decided, in the short term, not to invest in it. We hope that they will divert the money back to the improvements for which it was intended.

Henry Smith: Next month EasyJet will start to provide regular scheduled services between London Gatwick and Moscow. Obviously that is welcome in that it will forge greater trade links, but the visa requirements are extremely bureaucratic and stringent, both for Russian business men visiting this country and for British business men visiting Russia. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will speak to the Home Secretary and the Business Secretary and try to resolve the issue?

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. As he knows, my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary are primarily responsible for such matters, and I will certainly discuss with Ministers in their Departments what can be done to improve the situation.

Jonathan Reynolds: Following the well-documented problems with the west coast main line refranchising, a lot of concerns have been raised about Department for Transport decisions that may have left it less able to deal with refranchising as efficiently as we would all like. When will consultation
	begin on the refranchising of the Northern and Trans- Pennine Express franchises, both of which are extremely important to my constituents?

Patrick McLoughlin: As was said earlier, I intend to make a statement about franchising in light of the Brown inquiry findings, and I hope to make that statement soon.

Oliver Colvile: On Thursday 23 November I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if he had been able to make an assessment of the impact of the floods in the south-west on Plymouth’s economy. My right hon. Friend replied saying it was far too early to make such an assessment. What progress has he been able to make on this, and on fixing the railway line between Exeter and Plymouth?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he properly and consistently raises this point. He attended a meeting in the House with the chief executive and other senior people from Network Rail and also from FirstGroup, which I organised. It gave my hon. Friend and other colleagues the opportunity to put these questions to them. I shall visit my hon. Friend’s constituency later this year, and we will be talking more directly about these issues.

John Spellar: If the Minister, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), refers to the text of the answer to Question 18, he will be aware of the scandal surrounding wheel-clamping and the involvement of criminal elements which led to its banning. There are now concerns that these undesirables are moving across into ticket parking control. Already 300 companies will have direct or indirect access to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database. What steps is he taking to prevent abuse, and will abusers be denied access very quickly?

Stephen Hammond: A range of comprehensive measures is in place to prevent the abuse of the DVLA database. Parking companies cannot obtain data from the DVLA unless they are members of an appropriate accredited trade association and abide by its code of practice. In this role, the British Parking Association audits its members annually, and the DVLA also undertakes regular inspections. When necessary, the DVLA takes direct action to suspend facilities to request vehicle keeper data. In 2012, the DVLA suspended 21 parking companies from receiving that information.

Cheryl Gillan: Can the Secretary of State confirm that landowners along the proposed High Speed 2 route are well within their rights to refuse access to consultants from HS2 Ltd who want to survey their properties and land? Will he assure me that the paving Bill will not be used to remove those rights from landowners and home owners, but will simply be used to regularise the expenditure on HS2, which has not yet been authorised by Parliament?

Patrick McLoughlin: When we present the paving Bill, my right hon. Friend will be able to see its contents. I have not yet secured the parliamentary time to be able to present it, but I very much hope to be able to do so—
	I say that as I look at Members who have far more influence in this matter than I do these days. At the beginning of questions, my right hon. Friend presented to me a substantial document setting out some of the improvements she would like. In order to put them in place, we will need access to some of the land.

Clive Betts: On the welcome electrification of the midland main line, I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that one of the objectives is to reduce journey times, so will he confirm that the rolling stock on the newly electrified line will be the new intercity express trains that can complete the journey more quickly? The alternative is a cascade of existing rolling stock from other lines, but, because they are heavier with slower acceleration, we could find that we have longer journey times despite having spent a lot of money on electrification.

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman and I share a close interest in this line as it serves both of our constituencies. I hear the representations he makes, but I am very pleased that we have been able to put the electrification of the line into the plan for 2014-19.

Nick de Bois: My constituents living in the east of Enfield are delighted with the support from the STAR—Stratford-Tottenham-Angel Road—investment programme, supported by the Government, which includes a third rail track, thus providing a more reliable service than the one commuters have suffered under for far too long. Will the Minister also lend his encouragement to the continuation of investment along this line, so the full London Enfield-Stansted corridor can realise its economic potential?

Norman Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the coalition Government’s massive investment in rail. We had a useful meeting with the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), about my hon. Friend’s constituency issue. To answer his specific point, we are expecting to continue investing on the Liverpool street-Enfield-Cambridge corridor, and on all other corridors where growth is forecast. I am pleased we have been able to offer a package that makes further investment in the Enfield route possible.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Food Products

David Hanson: What discussions the Commission has had with the Food Standards Agency on products served at catering outlets in the House of Commons.

John Thurso: The Commission has no direct discussions with the Food Standards Agency on products served in its outlets. However, the House’s catering service continues to be
	vigilant and to act in line with FSA recommendations. The catering service is also in communication with its accredited suppliers, trade associations, the trade press and an independent food safety service about any potential problems in the food supply chain.

David Hanson: Consumers, whether they are in the House of Commons or on the high street, expect integrity in their food supply. Will the hon. Gentleman continue that contact with suppliers so that they look at their suppliers to ensure that this House has integrity of supply?

John Thurso: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that request and can certainly give him that assurance. The recent case of some products being withdrawn happened precisely because the supplier, Brakes, made contact with us as part of that dialogue. I am delighted to say that they are all back in service, having been found to have had no problems.

Anne McIntosh: I thank my hon. Friend for the work he and the Commission are doing in this regard. May I also request that we consider the traceability issue and use this as an opportunity to take prime beef from north Yorkshire, as that would be music to the ears of my constituents?

John Thurso: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, but I have to say that there will be stiff competition from the prime beef from the north of Scotland.

Mr Speaker: I call Meg Hillier. Not here.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Written Ministerial Statements

Kevin Brennan: If he will introduce a procedure to inform all hon. Members when written ministerial statements deemed to be too commercially sensitive to be listed in the Order Paper are published.

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that all written ministerial statements issued to the House are listed on the Order Paper.

Kevin Brennan: That is not quite true, is it? A few weeks ago, a written ministerial statement about the extension of the First Great Western rail franchise was not listed in the Order Paper because it was deemed to be too market sensitive. I had an exchange with the Leader of the House about that matter at business questions. Should not some sort of guidelines be brought in to ensure that, when that occurs, Departments inform Members directly as soon as that information becomes available rather than our having to learn about it through the press or through the superior knowledge of the Leader of the House?

Tom Brake: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. I have in front of me the Order Paper for the day to which he refers and that written ministerial statement is listed.

Angela Smith: The Government have form on not keeping the House fully informed and in an electronic age, surely it is not beyond the wit of even this Government to find a way of ensuring that Members’ rights and the rights of this House are fully recognised.

Tom Brake: Clearly, the Government are keen to make use of technology and would be very open to the idea of using it to provide written ministerial statements as early as possible. We would be very interested in pursuing that.

Peter Bone: This is an outrageous slur from the Opposition. This Government make everyone aware as soon as possible: we need only buy the newspapers or put on the television and we know in advance. Is this not an outrageous slur?

Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has regularly reminded Ministers, including members of the Cabinet, that it is important that they come to the House to make ministerial statements here first.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Apprentices

Robert Halfon: What estimate the Commission has made of the number of apprentices employed by the House service and its primary contractors and their sub-contractors.

John Thurso: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to him in writing on 17 January, which said that both the catering service and the Parliamentary Estates Directorate were considering options for apprenticeship schemes. In addition, discussions with a number of major contractors, such as Royal Mail, suggest that they operate apprenticeship schemes within their larger businesses. The Department of Facilities is aware of three apprentices employed by a large contractor working on the parliamentary estate and the director general of facilities would be happy to discuss this further with the hon. Gentleman.

Robert Halfon: Will my hon. Friend make sure that the House of Commons does everything possible to employ more apprentices, and will he link up with the parliamentary apprentice school, which I have set up with the charity New Deal of the Mind that helps provide apprentices for MPs’ offices so that we can perhaps supply apprentices for the House of Commons Administration and around the House of Commons?

John Thurso: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion, and I am sure that we will want to act on it. I pay tribute to Mr Speaker’s scheme for internships and the other schemes of this order, all of which help to get young people into employment from diverse backgrounds throughout the House.

Barry Sheerman: May I push the hon. Gentleman? I do not want to be rude to him, but that was a bit of a pathetic response. The House employs a lot of people. We should demand of the supply chain to this House not only good pure food but that our suppliers employ a fair number of apprentices. I have often criticised the management of the House. It is not sharp enough. More apprentices, and let us have them now please.

John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. However, there are difficulties, namely, that most of the procurement that takes place in the House is subject to regulations, particularly European contracting regulations, which mean that one may express desires, but one is not always able to impose. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the House authorities are committed to providing apprenticeships, paid internships, and encouragement for young people from all backgrounds into good employment wherever they can.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Number of Sitting Days

Philip Hollobone: What comparative assessment he has made of the annual number of sitting days of the House and that of other parliaments around the world.

Andrew Lansley: Based on statistics from the Society of Clerks at the Table in the Commonwealth, United States Congress and European Parliament—an unimpeachable source—the House of Commons sits for more days and for longer than most comparable Parliaments.

Philip Hollobone: The important thing is not the number of days that a Parliament sits but how effectively that time is used. Does the Leader of House believe that the success in this House of the scheduling of debates by the Backbench Business Committee is likely to be a model copied by other Parliaments around the world?

Andrew Lansley: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are unique in this place in having established a Backbench Business Committee which puts a substantial proportion of the time of the House at the disposal of Back-Bench Members without being controlled by the respective Front-Bench teams. That is terrifically important. I was struck when I visited the Scottish Parliament last week that, although there is time for Members’ debates, it is at the behest of the business managers. As a business manager, I might see advantage in that, but the House of Commons has resolved to give Back Benchers a substantial amount of time, and that is a welcome reform led by my predecessor.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

House of Commons Library (Books Borrowed)

Thomas Docherty: What the three most frequently borrowed books are in the Library in the current Parliament.

John Thurso: The three books most frequently borrowed from the House of Commons Library between 7 May 2010 and 14 February 2013 were “How Parliament Works” by Robert Rogers and Rhodri Walters, borrowed 44 times, Erksine May’s “A Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament”, edited by the Clerk of the House, borrowed 33 times, and in third place “A Journey” by Tony Blair, borrowed 31 times.

Thomas Docherty: There is no surprise that the most popular book borrowed is a well-written and informative read, but does he share my disappointment at the lack of progress on a new and updated edition? Perhaps the Commission could consider some ways of encouraging progress. I understand that the rack has fallen out of fashionable use, but perhaps a spell clerking the Administration Committee or even the Travel Office consumer panel might encourage progress?

John Thurso: I am sure that both of those posts would be warmly welcomed by all conscientious Clerks, but the serious point that the hon. Gentleman makes that colleagues are using works that are possibly in need of updating will I am sure have been heard by those who may be responsible for it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I should inform the House that the present Clerk of the House presented me with a signed copy of the sixth edition of his well-thumbed tome upon my election to the Chair. I hope that the House will feel that I have gained greatly from reading it cover to cover.

Food and Drink Subsidy

Andrew Stephenson: What progress the Commission has made on reducing the subsidy on food and drink served in the House.

John Thurso: The cost of the catering service is expected to have been reduced by £1.1 million over the past three years. It stood at £5.9 million in 2010-11 and £5.1 million in 2011-12. The forecast cost for the current financial year is £4.8 million. The current aim is to reduce the cost further so that by 2015 it should be reduced by £3 million, roughly half of what it was at the start of the Parliament.

Andrew Stephenson: I welcome my hon. Friend’s answer, but recent media reports that the subsidy for Parliament’s 19 restaurants, nine bars and the coffee shop has actually increased over the past year were met with dismay from
	many of our constituents across the country. In addition to what he has said today about reducing the cost of the House catering facilities, I urge him to look at moving even faster on the issue to ensure that all subsidy is removed as soon as possible.

John Thurso: We are certainly seeking to reduce the cost wherever possible, but there have been changes in the way we operate that make turnover more difficult. I point out that the key gross profit, or kitchen profit, made by the House’s outlets is fully comparable to what we would expect to find in industry. It is the other costs, caused largely by our sitting arrangements and the staffing required for that, that put us over into subsidy. That is the area currently being tackled by the business improvement plan.

Alan Haselhurst: Should we not always think of the 12,000 or more passholders beyond the number of Members of Parliament, most of whom are on lower salaries, and consider that it is perfectly in order to have an element of subsidy? Those passholders include journalists who work in the House. Therefore, in trying to be prudent about bringing down the cost of the catering service, we should bear in mind that in many places of work it is quite normal to have an element of subsidy.

John Thurso: My right hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It is worth noting that the gross profit, or kitchen profit, made in the dining rooms is at the high end of the scale and extremely comparable to high street restaurants. The subsidy is needed far more in the canteens, which are enjoyed by passholders on far more modest salaries.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Private Members’ Bills

Hugh Bayley: What his policy is on the time available for private Members’ Bills.

Tom Brake: The time available for private Members’ Bills is set out in the Standing Orders at 13 Fridays in each Session.

Hugh Bayley: I have been a Member of the House for nearly 21 years, but my name has never been drawn in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, and those whose names are drawn rarely get their legislation through the House. Will the Deputy Leader of the House look at amending the Standing Orders to give more Back-Bench Members the opportunity to get legislation on the statute book?

Tom Brake: Whether to change the Standing Orders would, of course, be a matter for the House, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend
	the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) and his predecessor have both been successful in securing private Members’ Bills while in opposition. Indeed, in the previous Session four private Members’ Bills made it to the statute book, and they were not hand-out Bills, and in this Session three private Members’ Bills have been secured in legislation, and we expect a further three to do so.

Philip Davies: Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that it is essential that all legislation, whether it stems from the Government or private Members, should be properly scrutinised and that we should not go down the route, as some people would have us do, of simply nodding through well-meaning legislation without proper or effective scrutiny?

Tom Brake: It is clear that the Government have put a heavy emphasis on the scrutiny of Bills, for example through pre-legislative scrutiny and the other mechanisms we are using with pilots to ensure that legislation in this House gets the appropriate consideration.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Parliamentary Estate (Wi-fi)

Diana Johnson: What recent progress has been made on improvements to wi-fi on the parliamentary estate that will enable the use of internet radios in offices.

John Thurso: Internet radio can be accessed over the parliamentary network from computers and mobile devices. Wi-fi is already available in many Members’ offices, and the remainder will have access by the end of next month. Dedicated wi-fi internet radio devices are not supported on the parliamentary infrastructure.

Diana Johnson: When away from one’s constituency it is very important to be able to access news. I set great store by listening to BBC Humberside’s news source, but it would be very helpful to be able to access it through the system on the estate. Will that be possible at the end of next month? When are we likely to be able to access regional live TV, which is also very useful for Members in keeping in touch with what is going on in their constituencies?

John Thurso: My understanding is that wi-fi internet radio devices are not accessible via the parliamentary infrastructure because only authorised parliamentary computing devices can be connected to it. However, I have taken note of the points that the hon. Lady has made, and I concur; I would love to be able to listen to Highland and Moray Firth radio. I will therefore, if I may, take it up with the relevant officials and come back to her with a fuller reply in writing.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 4 March—Remaining stages of the Justice and Security Bill [Lords] (day 1).
	Tuesday 5 March—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on the budget and structure of the Ministry of Justice, followed by a debate on financing of new housing supply.
	Wednesday 6 March—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on universal credit, followed by a debate on regulation of medical imports in the EU and UK.
	At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates. Further details will be given in the Official Report.
	[The details are as follows: There will be a debate on Universal Credit, Third Report of Work and Pensions Committee 2012-13 (HC 576) Government response, February 2013 (CM 8537)].
	Thursday 7 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipations and Adjustments) Bill, followed by conclusion of remaining stages of the Justice and Security Bill [Lords].
	The provisional business for the following week will include:
	Monday 11 March—Second Reading of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.
	Tuesday 12 March—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 13 March—Remaining stages of the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords].
	Thursday 14 March—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 7 March will be:
	Thursday 7 March—Debate on the Scottish Affairs Committee report on the referendum on separation for Scotland: terminating Trident—days or decades?

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.
	Today would have been the 67th birthday of Robin Cook. He is remembered, among many things, for his formidable mind and for the reform and modernisation of the Commons that he delivered when he was Leader of the House.
	I want to congratulate the Patronage Secretary, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who was first elected on this day in 1974. I wonder whether he agrees that there are some clear parallels between the run-up to that election and now: economic turmoil, a Conservative Government in crisis, and an Education Secretary with an eye to the main
	chance. There is even an NUM—a national union of Ministers to resist further cuts in their Departments. We wish them well.
	It is three months since Lord Justice Leveson published his report. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is vital that we make sure that what happened to the Dowlers, the McCanns and countless other victims of press intrusion can never happen again? The debate that we had in this place before Christmas and the amendments attached to the Defamation Bill in the other place demonstrate clearly that parliamentarians from across all parties and across both Houses support the implementation of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations. Since the Bill has now completed all its stages in the other place, when does the Leader of the House expect it to be back in this House?
	The Government have been caught out trying to privatise the NHS by stealth. The NHS competition regulations create a system of compulsory competitive tendering for all NHS services. This is in breach of direct assurances given during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, not least by the Leader of the House himself. While the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister appear happy to unleash a free market free-for-all in the NHS, the Liberal Democrat Health Minister, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), is not. On Tuesday in Health questions, he criticised the regulations, which can neither be amended nor easily withdrawn. Given the huge level of concern, will the Leader of the House arrange for us to debate the statutory instrument on the Floor of the House and not upstairs in Committee?
	“Channel 4 News” has published disturbing revelations about alleged cases of sexual harassment in the Liberal Democrats. While the party hierarchy have buried their heads in the sand, the victims are being let down. Next Friday is international women’s day, so will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate in Government time on sexual harassment of women and the culture of silence that all too often surrounds it?
	The Leader of the House has announced that the Second Reading of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill is scheduled for 11 March, but the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is not due to issue its second report until later this year, after the conclusion of the Commons Committee stage, which means that the House is expected to scrutinise a Bill that is only half written. That shows contempt for the Commons, so will the Leader of the House assure us that the Committee stage will not begin before the commission has reported?
	Last week we learned that the part-time Chancellor was missing £1 billion from his 4G auction receipts. He was so desperate to fiddle the figures that, as usual, he put party politics before economics. We also learned that Britain has lost its triple A credit rating. Let us remind ourselves of what the Chancellor promised in the Conservative manifesto:
	“We will safeguard Britain’s credit rating”.
	He also said that it would be a benchmark against which the British public could
	“judge the economic success or failure of the next government.”
	This is more than just a humiliation for our downgraded Chancellor—he has failed a test he set for himself. Even now, however, he is too stubborn to admit his mistakes,
	so the British people are paying the price for this downgraded Chancellor’s failed economic strategy. Businesses, families and pensioners feel it every day, while in April 13,000 millionaires will get a six-figure tax cut. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor to begin his Budget statement with an apology?
	I was shocked to see the Prime Minister hugging five hoodies in Downing street last week, until I realised it was a photo op with the chart-topping group, One Direction, for Comic Relief. This week, however, band member Harry Styles has declared himself a Labour man. He apparently styles his outfits on those of Harold Wilson and Michael Foot. Harry and I know that there is only one direction in which this Government are heading and it is the wrong one. Perhaps the Prime Minister should have instead met with hip hop artist, Plan B.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, particularly for her tribute to my distinguished predecessors. Robin Cook was a notable Leader of the House for the reforms that he brought in. Indeed, I am sure, as time goes by, that the contribution of the current Patronage Secretary will be seen as such, not least because, as our discussions in business questions show, the Backbench Business Committee has improved dramatically Members’ access to the Floor of the House to debate current issues.
	The hon. Lady raised a number of matters. On the principles of the Leveson report, she will know that only a few days ago the Conservative party published proposals for a royal charter to implement them. That is subject to cross-party discussions and I urge them to proceed and come to a successful conclusion. I share the view of my noble friend Lord McNally, who made it clear on Third Reading of the Defamation Bill that, while the so-called Puttnam amendment was amended further at that stage, the amendment is still unacceptable. On that basis, I hope that an agreement will be reached that will enable us to proceed with the Bill without that amendment and to deal with Leveson properly.
	It is not unknown for us to debate the regulations for public procurement in the NHS. The hon. Lady will know that it is possible for Opposition business managers to seek access to such a debate through the usual channels, and I encourage her to do so. On the substance of the issue, however, she is not right. The Prime Minister was quite right yesterday and let me reiterate what he said. If we did not have these regulations, normal procurement law and competition rules would apply. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), knows perfectly well that the principal rules for co-operation and competition would have applied in the same way before the last election. If he and the hon. Lady look at the regulations properly, which of course I have, they will see that it is possible to proceed without a competition on a single tender basis. The regulations, for the first time, create a structure that allows for “any qualified provider”. That is exactly what was said during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and what is stated in the Act. There is no change in policy. The regulations enable commissioners to go for whoever is best placed to improve the quality of the services, meet the needs of people who use the services and improve efficiency, including through an “any qualified provider” route rather than a competitive tendering route.
	The hon. Lady asked about a debate on international women’s day. I have announced the business and it does not allow us to have such a debate on that day; the House is not sitting on 8 March and the business does not allow for such a debate on 7 March. However, there is an Opposition day on the following week and the Backbench Business Committee has always been receptive to Back-Bench Members who apply for such debates, as was demonstrated in the well attended and well structured debate that took place the week before last.
	The hon. Lady asked about the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that before Second Reading—not before Committee stage, as was previously intended—the Government will publish the principal draft regulations associated with the Bill. She asked about the timing of the Committee stage. She knows perfectly well that it is our intention on Second Reading to table a carry-over motion so that we can consider carefully what is the appropriate timing for the Committee stage.
	I thought that the most important sign-up to a political party this week was to the Conservative party on the part of Marta Andreasen, a UK Independence party MEP. That demonstrates that across this country people are recognising that the Prime Minister’s speech on the future of our relationship with the European Union was, as she said, a “game changer”.
	I apologise that we have not been able to give the hon. Lady and her colleagues time for an Opposition day debate next week as we are making progress with legislation. When she does have that opportunity the week after next, there are many matters for her to choose from: the increase in employment last year, with the fastest rate of new employment growth in the private sector since the 1980s; the reduction of more than 80% in the number of people waiting for NHS operations for more than a year and the waits that patients have to experience in Wales under a Labour Government, which the shadow Secretary of State for Health might want to debate; and, in the Home Office context, the reduction in crime figures or the reduction in net migration to this country of a third since the last election, which was announced this morning. This is a coalition Government delivering on our promises.

Alan Haselhurst: Given that one of the world’s worst-kept secrets is that Commonwealth day falls on 11 March and that Commonwealth Parliaments are being encouraged to mark that day with a debate on a Commonwealth theme, how can it be that this House is being given no opportunity to debate the Commonwealth, the proposed charter or connected matters?

Andrew Lansley: I have discussed this matter with a number of colleagues and have encouraged them to approach the Backbench Business Committee. I am not aware of whether they have done so. Of course, I have announced the business for 11 March, so I do not think that we can accommodate such a debate on that day. However, a number of Parliaments are debating the Commonwealth at some time close to that day. I encourage my right hon. Friend and others to continue to approach the Backbench Business Committee on that matter.

Natascha Engel: Following the question from the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) about Commonwealth day, the Backbench Business Committee approached the Government to ask whether they would open Westminster Hall on a Monday afternoon to facilitate such a debate, but the Government refused. In light of that, may I ask the Leader of the House whether the Backbench Business Committee’s full allocation of time will be received from the Government before the end of the Session? By our calculations we have two provisional days booked in and nothing more on the horizon, which falls at least one day short. So far, we have 13 important and urgent Back-Bench debates that need scheduling.

Andrew Lansley: As the House will know, the Standing Orders provide for Westminster Hall to be opened on a Monday only for particular purposes, and I did not think it appropriate for us to seek to depart from that in this instance. The hon. Lady asked about the time available for the Backbench Business Committee, and taking today’s debate into account it will have scheduled 25 and a half days’ debate in this Session. The Standing Orders provide for 27 days in this Session, and I am confident that we will meet and exceed that.

William Cash: As the Leader of the House will know, last week I raised the urgency of holding a debate in Government time on the Francis report. I discussed the matter with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and she entirely agrees with me, and others, who believe it is becoming a disgrace that we are not holding a debate on that vital issue. There is also the question of Sir David Nicholson and whether he should resign. Will the Leader of the House please speak to the Prime Minister and ensure that we have that debate as a matter of urgency in Government time on the Floor of the House?

Andrew Lansley: As my hon. Friend knows, it is the Government’s intention to have a debate on that issue. He will also know, however, that on 15 January he and his colleagues went to the Backbench Business Committee to ask for time for a debate, but it has not been scheduled. We must remember that as a general proposition this House resolved that the Backbench Business Committee should take responsibility for a wide range of debates, including general debates. If we start to re-import an expectation that the Government will provide time for such debates, it will by extension be impossible to allocate the same amount of time to the Backbench Business Committee. We will have a debate on the Francis report and discuss between ourselves how that is to be accomplished at the appropriate moment. I continue to make the general point of principle that the Backbench Business Committee exists in part to enable the House to debate current important issues, as it did with Hillsborough, for example.

David Winnick: May we have a debate in Government time on the fact that we are supposedly “all in it together”, so that we can contrast the return of the curse of fuel poverty that is affecting many of our constituents with the handover of some £10 million to the outgoing chief executive of
	British gas, the £1.3 billion to shareholders, and the fact that so much is being done to make life more difficult for the people we represent?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will know that the House supported in legislation the establishment of the green deal, which will make an enormous difference to many people. Many companies in the energy sector are providing discounts on energy bills to something approaching 2 million households, and over the winter the Government are supporting many people with winter fuel payments. In addition, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Energy Bill has just been considered in Committee, and when it returns to the House it will provide an opportunity to debate many of the issues surrounding fuel and energy prices, and energy poverty.

Andrew Bridgen: On a day when the Royal Bank of Scotland announced a further £5 billion of losses, it is pertinent to call for a debate on the ongoing losses—currently around £20 billion —being suffered by the taxpayer as a result of the previous Government’s handling of the bank bail-outs in 2008. Mr Michael Cohrs, a member of the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee, stated recently that the previous Government probably overpaid for their stakes in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group. Interestingly, the then chairman of Lloyds Banking Group, Sir Victor Blank, subsequently made a £10,000 donation to the Labour party.

Andrew Lansley: The House will have noted that I announced in the provisional business for the week after next the Second Reading of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, which will allow hon. Members an opportunity to debate the issues my hon. Friend raises. In addition, the shadow Chancellor, who was the City Minister responsible at the time of a banking collapse, will perhaps have the opportunity to explain and apologise to the people of this country.

Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made by the appropriate Minister on the scandalous treatment by Tesco of more than 400 workers in a high-unemployment area in Bolsover? Tesco is transferring those workers 170 miles down south, which is a complete contradiction of the regional policy of sending jobs up to the north. Tesco has been there for only a few years. Will the Leader of the House ensure that all the assistance that Tesco got to set up its distribution factory—all the money it received from development agencies, Europe, central Government and local government—is paid back? Does he agree that that scandalous treatment shows that Tesco stinks worse than the horsemeat it has been selling?

Andrew Lansley: The commercial decisions of Tesco are not a matter for me. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) is in his place. I am sure that he, like the hon. Gentleman, has issues to raise regarding the decisions that Tesco has made. However, they are commercial matters for the companies concerned.

Michael Crockart: May we have a statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on what it is doing to prevent identity fraud?
	I have recently received complaints from a constituent that his address has been used on two separate occasions in the registration of new companies without his knowledge or permission. The Government should not be complicit in any form of identity theft.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will speak to my hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to secure a response to it. In so far as the Government have regulations and require people to be on databases, it is important that the information is valid and reliable.

Keith Vaz: The Leader of the House has mentioned the immigration figures. He will know that today the chief inspector of the UK Border Agency has published a report showing that, last year, 300 people entered Birmingham airport without proper checks. May we have an urgent statement from the Home Secretary on how that was allowed to happen? May we also have an assurance that anyone entering this country has undergone the full border checks that are required?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that the chief inspector published a report on Birmingham airport. Regrettably, it included the fact that, over a number of occasions, 278 passengers came through the primary control point when the biometric chip-reading facility had been deactivated. As the report acknowledges, that is one of a number of checks that UK Border Force officers conduct to verify identity. All criminal and immigration checks remained in place and action has already been taken to ensure that that cannot happen again. All contingency staff deployed to the border were fully trained to enable them to undertake the necessary security checks.

Philip Davies: Before the half-term recess, we had a debate on violence against women and girls. According to the Ministry of Justice, men and boys are twice as likely to be victims of violent crime as women and girls. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am a big fan of equality—I believe you once referred to me as “a troglodyte” in one such debate in the previous Parliament. Therefore, in the interests of equality, may we have a debate on violence against men and boys?

Andrew Lansley: In the interests of equality, I advise my hon. Friend to approach the Backbench Business Committee in the same way that hon. Members who secured the debate on violence against women and girls did.

Helen Jones: May I return to the Health and Social Care Act 2012? I remind the Leader of the House that the then Health Minister, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), assured the Bill Committee that there was no intention to impose compulsory competitive tendering. Those assurances were repeated by the Leader of the House and by Earl Howe in the other place. Will the Leader of the House arrange not only for the regulations to be debated on the Floor of the House, but for us to have a debate on ministerial standards and accountability, so that we can discuss how those assurances came to be given by Ministers when something completely different has happened in the regulations?

Andrew Lansley: I will not repeat what I have said before, but I have to say to the hon. Lady that the regulations are entirely consistent with commitments and statements made by Ministers during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

Mark Pritchard: One of my constituents was recently knocked over and killed crossing Heybridge road in Hadley in my constituency. He was nine years old. Can we have an urgent debate on the need for West Mercia police and Telford and Wrekin council to listen to the concerns of residents of both Leegomery and Hadley about speeding traffic in those residential areas?

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the House shares my hon. Friend’s regret about the tragic circumstances that he describes. We have just had Transport questions, and he will know how strongly Ministers in that Department feel about the need to improve our record on road safety, good as it may already be. Local authorities can play a part in that, and I will of course ask my hon. Friends if they can add anything to enable him to approach his local authority in that way.

Barry Sheerman: If the Leader of the House had been in another part of the House this morning, he could have heard the Children’s Commissioner tell a group of us interested in children’s issues that we have the worst outcomes for child health in Europe. With the plague of obesity and lack of exercise, and the evidence that the likelihood of any young person going to any green spaces in our country has halved in a generation, may we have an early debate on children’s access to the countryside?

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry that I did not have an opportunity to hear the Children’s Commissioner: I would have appreciated doing so. It will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice that in January last year, knowing that we had poor child health statistics relative to other highly developed countries, I asked a team led by the medical director at Alder Hey and other distinguished clinicians and representatives in that area to form a taskforce, which reported last year. On that basis, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) last week announced further measures to take that forward as part of a strategy to improve children’s health.

Matthew Offord: Given the changes to A-levels announced by the Department for Education in November 2012, can we have a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to advise on how the Government intend to prevent students who started their A-level courses in September 2012 from being adversely affected by the changes midway through their course?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will be aware that Education Ministers will be here on Monday to answer questions. He will also know that the decision to remove the January exams was taken by Ofqual, following strong support during its regulatory consultation on A-level reform. That consultation highlighted concerns that modular exams and a high frequency of re-sit opportunities led to teaching to the test and a culture of
	re-sits. Removing the January exam will limit the number of re-sit opportunities and help to address those concerns, but it will impact on those students who began their course in September 2012.

Jim Sheridan: Party politics aside, all our constituents and local businesses are angry at and frustrated by the contemptuous way in which the bankers and energy companies are treating us. Could we therefore have a debate on how best we could give protection to consumers in our constituencies? Our Select Committees do an excellent job in scrutinising these industries but lack any effective powers. Is that something that the Leader of the House would be prepared to consider?

Andrew Lansley: I say to the hon. Gentleman—equally, party politics aside—that we are not powerless in this House. We are discussing an Energy Bill that will require energy companies to give their customers access to the lowest possible tariffs. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is currently looking at the question of standards in banking and the way in which customers are treated by the banking industry. We are not powerless and the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill and the Energy Bill can be instrumental in giving consumers a better offer in relation to these industries.

Henry Smith: I congratulate the Government on their recent decision to stop backing World Bank and IMF loans to Argentina, because Buenos Aires has an appalling record of defaulting on international loans. Unbelievably, the country is still a member of the G20 despite its appalling economic record and how it behaves internationally. Can we have a debate on how G20 membership is decided?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend may wish to raise that issue with Foreign Office Ministers on Tuesday, but I appreciate what he has to say about World Bank loans to Argentina. The G20 is an informal organisation with no formal criteria for membership, and that has remained unchanged since it was first established. Any change to G20 membership, or the introduction of criteria for membership, would require consensus agreement by its members. Currently, there are no plans to revisit either.

Kevin Brennan: Can we have a debate on bankers’ bonuses? I understand that the Government are opposing the EU proposal to limit them without shareholder permission to the salary of the banker concerned. According to Wiktionary, a bonus is extra pay due to good performance. A bonus that is in excess of an entire salary is not extra pay due to good performance. Is it not just pure, unadulterated, sheer, naked greed?

Andrew Lansley: I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he has to recognise that, as he will have noticed from how many people have responded to the proposal agreed between the Commission and Parliament, it runs the risk of converting what properly should be a bonus into something that is consolidated into people’s salaries. That would lead to additional fixed rather than variable costs in the banking industry.
	We have to focus on ensuring that the industry is competitive and that bonuses are genuine, and not end up with an artificial situation that makes the industry more costly and less competitive.

Alun Cairns: The local authority in the Vale of Glamorgan has recently been considering plans to close three schools. Two are among the best in Wales, and one is one of the best improved in the area. Unfortunately, the final decision lies with the local authority. Thankfully, it has been forced by parents to back down. Can we have a debate on free schools, which empower parents to take control of the future of these establishments? Such a debate would also inform and educate people across other parts of the UK.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—and I am sure his constituents will be too for the support he gives them in this respect. He will be frustrated that the Labour Government in Wales are not adopting reforms analogous to those being pursued in England by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. My right hon. Friend will be at the Dispatch Box on Monday and, although it is not his ministerial responsibility, I am sure he would share with Members in this House the view that if the Welsh Labour Government followed some of the precepts of academies and free schools, it would be much to the advantage of parents and pupils.

William Bain: It is 10 years since the start of the conflict in Darfur, which led to the slaughter of 300,000 Darfuris. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on human rights in Sudan? Is he aware that this morning 98 politicians from the UK, United States and Australia signed an open letter to their Foreign Ministers asking for urgent leadership in the Security Council to ensure that we do not see a repeat of that violence and a man-made famine in southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and he does it well. He will have an opportunity to raise the issue again with Foreign Office Ministers on Tuesday. He will find that my hon. Friends in the Government share his concern to ensure that we continue to keep up the pressure on Sudan to respect human rights and to maintain a level of peace in that country.

James Morris: Head teachers in my constituency have told me that they have been able to use the pupil premium money to help some of the most disadvantaged pupils in their schools. Can we have a debate about the success of the pupil premium policy and ensure that schools have the freedom to make decisions on how to allocate the pupil premium budget without pressure from trade unions or local authorities trying to resist?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend shares my view that the £2.5 billion now in the pupil premium is making a dramatic difference, particularly for schools that have a responsibility to try to secure the best education for some of the most disadvantaged pupils—that is terrifically important. From having talked to head teachers, I know that of particular importance to them are the freedoms
	we have given them in a range of respects, especially the freedom to use those resources in the best interests of the school as a whole.

Simon Danczuk: Early on 15 February, there was a major fire in Rochdale at what was the world’s biggest asbestos factory, the now derelict Turner Brothers mill. Firefighters spent five hours battling the blaze, and concerns have been raised that no air monitoring took place. Will the Government make a statement that promises the people of Rochdale that this matter will be investigated, that the site will be secured, and that all laws to protect our environment and public health will be fully enforced?

Andrew Lansley: I confess that I was not aware of the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes, but they are obviously very important for his constituency and beyond. I will therefore talk to colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in respect of the Environment Agency and colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to the Health and Safety Executive to see whether they can respond to his points.

Karl McCartney: You may recall, Mr Speaker, that a month ago I asked the Leader of the House a question about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. No organisation, charity or business would allow its finance department to budget for a cost per employee of about £10,000 per annum to process each individual claim. What does he think of IPSA senior management’s bullying tactics and threats, subsequent to my raising these issues, to try to silence me regarding their spiralling costs? Does he think that the chief executive should show some backbone and meet me—he has refused to do so for more than two and a half years —instead of attempting to smear the names of Members of Parliament by false innuendo and subterfuge?

Mr Speaker: Order. I appreciate the sincerity with which that point has been raised, and it is a matter of concern to the House, but I am afraid that it is not a business question. The hon. Gentleman should have requested a statement or a debate, but it absolutely was not a business question, as I have just been reminded by the Clerk Assistant. The Leader of the House may wish to say something, but Members really must play by the rules and not invent them as they go along.

Andrew Lansley: I completely understand, Mr Speaker. If it is helpful to the House, I will of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend and, as a member of your Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I would be glad to take forward any issues he has.

Alison McGovern: May we have an urgent debate on the proper use of employment statistics? The Leader of the House mentioned the number of people in employment, but of course what actually matters is the employment rate. Earlier this week, the Chancellor was dismissive of my raising problems of underemployment; he referred to the number of hours worked, but it is the rate of underemployment that matters. Ministers can try to ignore the problem if they wish, but that will not convince constituents of
	mine who can get only a zero-hours or 10-hours contract when what they actually want is a full-time, permanent job.

Andrew Lansley: I was present at the time and I am sure the Chancellor was correct in saying that the number of hours worked has increased. The key points are of course that the number of people in work is up and is now 29.73 million, and that the employment rate is 71.5%. Rather than trying to make a point in the way she does, the hon. Lady should celebrate the fact that since the election employment in the private sector has risen by over 1 million and, as a consequence, last year’s employment increase was the fastest rate of private sector growth in employment since the 1980s.

Robert Halfon: Following on from the question from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 1116 on Tesco?
	[That this House notes with huge regret and disappointment the planned closure of the Tesco distribution plant at Harlow; further notes the contribution that many Harlow workers have made to its success and the strong customer base that they have served throughout the Eastern region, as well as tens of thousands of families in Harlow town itself; accepts that Tesco has pledged that all workers will be offered positions elsewhere including the new Dagenham site; urges that pay and conditions remain the same or better for staff who have been affected; thanks the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for its efforts on negotiating on behalf of Tesco employees; and calls on Tesco to do everything possible to look after its many hundred loyal and committed staff at the Harlow depot.]
	May we have an urgent debate about workers’ pay and conditions? Hundreds of Harlow workers are losing their jobs because the Tesco distribution centre is closing. Will my right hon. Friend write to the Business Secretary to ensure that workers who are given jobs elsewhere retain their pay and conditions?

Andrew Lansley: I will, of course, as my hon. Friend requests, talk to my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, not least to ensure that we do everything we can to support workers in Harlow, Bolsover and elsewhere.

Ian Murray: Media reports are suggesting that the Government are pushing ahead at great pace with the privatisation of Royal Mail. Given that the House has not debated the issue since the passing of the Postal Services Act 2011, may we have an urgent debate or a statement on the Government’s proposals for the privatisation of that much-cherished national institution?

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Gentleman suggests in his question, the House has resolved what should happen, and it is now a question of carrying that forward. He will of course have an opportunity to ask questions of Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills shortly. I do not have the date—

Tom Brake: On 21 March.

Andrew Lansley: It will be on 21 March.

Julian Smith: The Government are doing excellent work on women’s issues, from equal pay audits, to women on boards domestically, to putting women and girls front and centre in international development. May I encourage calls for a debate to celebrate international women’s day and the brilliant work that this Government are doing on women’s issues?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will have heard me say in response to the shadow Leader of the House that the House will not be sitting on 8 March, which is international women’s day, but that I hope that if he and other hon. Members across the House were to approach the Backbench Business Committee, it might find an opportunity for a debate to celebrate the many ways in which women are at the heart of the delivery of the economy and enterprise—[Hon. Members: “There is not one woman on the Government Benches!”]—and indeed of good government in this country.

Diana Johnson: Yes, it is nice to see so many women from the coalition Government parties on their Benches today!
	I would like to ask the Leader of the House about the restrictions that have been placed on Hull City supporters who will be travelling to Huddersfield for the football game on 30 March. They have been told that they will have to travel by coach from Hull, and that restriction is causing a lot of problems for my constituents. May we have a debate in the House on putting in place sensible guidelines on the placing of restrictions on football matches, so that such restrictions are used only when there is clear evidence that the police need them?

Andrew Lansley: I suspect that that might be an operational issue for the police, and that it should therefore be raised with the chief constable. I am not necessarily amenable to granting a debate on the specific instance that the hon. Lady has raised, but she will recall that I have previously expressed the hope that there might be an occasion on which the House could debate issues relating to football governance. Such a debate could stretch widely across the way in which football is not only governed but policed, as that would also be relevant. I must also point out that the women Members on the Government side of the House—those from my party, at least—are busy in Eastleigh today, seeking to secure the election of a new woman Member of Parliament, Maria Hutchings.

Andrew Jones: During this Parliament, more than 650,000 apprenticeships have been started by people under the age of 24, and over half of all apprenticeships are now taken up by women. We have seen a significant increase in the take-up of apprenticeships in the north, especially in my constituency. Please may we have a debate to explore the role that apprenticeships are playing in the rebalancing of our economy? Next month, we will celebrate national apprenticeship week, so that might prove to be helpful timing.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to celebrate the fact that we are increasing the number of apprenticeships—1 million over two years—and that efforts under the youth contract announced by the Deputy Prime Minister are enabling us to focus on
	the needs of young people, through apprenticeships and the new traineeships that will enable them to access vocational opportunities.

Wayne David: One of the features of this Parliament has been the collapse of the Government’s agenda for constitutional reform. May we have a debate on why it is considered unnecessary to have fewer thorough debates on constitutional reform in this Parliament?

Andrew Lansley: I do not recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. This Government are pursuing issues relating to constitutional reform. We have reformed Parliament in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, we have changed the arrangements in this House and we are taking forward measures relating to the recall of MPs. As a Conservative, I always like the need for constitutional reform to be proven by evidence, and that is how we are proceeding.

Glyn Davies: Council-provided services in Montgomeryshire are under threat of devastation because of the legal costs of defending decisions, arrived at democratically, to refuse planning permission for wind farms. The foreign-owned energy leviathans that are taking those actions seem to have unlimited access to subsidies to pay for their costs. May we have a statement on the Government’s position on this matter, to determine how democracy might be retained in Montgomeryshire?

Andrew Lansley: I recall that my hon. Friend and I have discussed the issue previously at business questions and I will, of course, go back to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. We want to make sure that there is a kind of equality of arms before the law so that people feel that they are not inhibited from getting access to planning opportunities or planning decisions simply because of the deep pockets of those seeking planning approval.

Jim Shannon: Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on regional variations in the numbers of those diagnosed with dementia? In England and Wales the figure is some 43%, in Northern Ireland it is approximately 60% and in Belfast, the central and largest city in Northern Ireland, it is 75%. The differentials and variations are obvious. An exchange of medical expertise in diagnosis for everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be to everyone’s advantage.

Andrew Lansley: We had a debate on dementia quite recently. It is important to understand regional variations on dementia, particularly given that, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Northern Ireland has a good record in identifying and diagnosing dementia. To that extent, the figures he quoted are about a differential in diagnosis rather than necessarily a variation in the incidence—or, I should say, the prevalence—of dementia in different parts of the United Kingdom. It is important to understand this issue, which is why the dementia challenge is in part precisely about ensuring that we get much higher rates of dementia diagnosis across parts of England and Wales.

Peter Bone: Can we have an urgent Government statement, because it is grossly unfair that each week the Leader of the House turns up at business questions to be duffed over by Members on both sides of the House over the allocation of time for parliamentary business? That happens because it is the Government who allocate the time. The coalition is committed to a Business of the House Committee made up of parliamentarians of all parties, excluding Front Benchers. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are opposed to such a measure, as long as it is based on the Jopling principles. We are committed to having this committee by the beginning of May: when are we going to have this Business of the House Committee?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know that I am not opposed to a House business committee; I am supportive of it, but we need to get it right. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is examining the issue right now. I do not feel in the least bit—

Peter Bone: Upset?

Andrew Lansley: I do not in the least feel under any kind of duress in respect of the allocation of time. I just need to remind Members from time to time that the House has resolved that a substantial part of its time—something approaching half the total number of sitting days—is made available to the Backbench Business Committee, to the Opposition, to the Liaison Committee—[Interruption.] We have to secure the business of government. From my point of view, it is absolutely transparent that a House business committee should add value to the measures that have made progress in this Parliament in giving Back Benchers access to parliamentary time, rather than detracting from them.

Nick de Bois: In connection with this question, I remind the House that my daughter is a practising medical student.
	Final-year medical students face uncertainty this week over their foundation programme jobs because of application scoring errors in the new SJT—situational judgment test. This week, more than 7,000 final-year medical students who were initially delighted to receive their foundation school allocations may be concerned that those allocated jobs are now at risk. Students were
	informed of this by e-mail at 6.30 on Tuesday, with no apology for the error, causing some distress and anxiety. That is completely unacceptable. Will the Leader of the House request a statement from the Secretary of State?

Andrew Lansley: The UK Foundation Programme Office is working urgently to resolve these problems so that there is minimum disruption to doctors and the affected hospitals, and to ensure that everyone is notified as quickly as possible about their placements for August. The error should not have happened and we are concerned about the anxiety that this has caused to students. I reiterate—and I recall making this clear when I was the Secretary of State for Health—that all eligible graduates of a UK medical school will receive a training place for August 2013.

Andrew Stephenson: Last Thursday I was given a guided tour of the new Visions Learning Trust university technical college at Victoria Mill in Burnley by Martin Gallagher, the college principal, and Steve Gray, the chief executive of Training 2000. The multi-million-pound college, which will open in August this year and will admit students aged between 14 and 19, is designed to appeal directly to the more vocationally minded, and is exactly what large Pendle employers such as Rolls-Royce, Weston EU and Graham Engineering said that our area needed. May we have a debate on university technical colleges, and the fantastic opportunity that they provide for young people to gain access to an education linked directly to the skills and knowledge that our local employers say that they desperately need?

Andrew Lansley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I should like to say that we could find time for a debate soon, but we may not be able to do so, although I am sure that the issues that he has raised would be relevant to questions to the Secretaries of State for Education and for Business, Innovation and Skills.
	My hon. Friend’s question had a certain resonance for me, because only last Friday I was standing on the site in Cambridge where a university technical college is to be established. It will focus on the provision of technical training for young people who will work in life sciences around Cambridge. The crucial aspect of such education is that it is directed to the needs of employers in an area, and enables young people to feel confident that the training they receive will enable them to find jobs quickly.

Point of Order: Rectification Procedure

Philip Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In March 2011 I accepted an invitation to Cheltenham races from Ladbrokes, which I properly and accurately registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. However, I failed to refer to my entry in the register when I tabled three parliamentary questions on problem gambling, when I led an Adjournment debate on problem gambling, and during an inquiry into the Gambling Act 2005 held by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, on which I serve and to which the chief executive of Ladbrokes gave evidence. A complaint was subsequently made to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. All other complaints made by the person concerned were dismissed.
	As soon as I was made aware of the complaint, I told the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that I believed that I should have referred to my entry on those occasions. My failure to do so was due not to a desire to conceal it—if that had been my motivation, I would not have registered my interest in the first place—but to an oversight, as I had forgotten about it. I offer that not as an excuse, Mr Speaker, because there is no excuse, but merely as an explanation. As soon I was aware of the complaint, I also apologised to the Select Committee, and offered to resign from it if any one of its members felt that I had acted improperly. I am very grateful to them all for accepting that mine had been a genuine error, and for saying that they did not believe that any impropriety had taken place.
	I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this benefit had no influence on my questions or speeches, or on the work or conclusions of the Select Committee, whose report was agreed unanimously. The Registrar for Members’ Financial Interests said in her letter:
	“I should emphasise that there is no suggestion that Mr Davies’ behaviour was in fact influenced.”
	Nevertheless, it was my duty to refer to my entry in the register on those occasions, and I failed to do so. It was therefore only right for me to take the earliest possible opportunity to apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to the whole House. I hope that you and the House will accept my sincere apology for what was a genuine error.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	HGV Road User Levy Act 2013
	Mental Health (Discrimination) Act 2013
	European Union (Approvals) Act 2013
	Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013
	Prisons (Property) Act 2013
	Canterbury City Council Act 2013
	Leeds City Council Act 2013
	Nottingham City Council Act 2013
	Reading Borough Council Act 2013

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Death Penalty (India)

John McDonnell: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the national petition launched by the Kesri Lehar campaign urging the UK Government to press the Indian government to sign and ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which encompasses the death penalty, with the result that India would abolish the death penalty and lift this threat from Balwant Singh Rajoana and others.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this debate, and for having considered our representations as a matter of urgency. I am also grateful to all the many colleagues from across all parties in the House for supporting the request for a debate.
	The motion replicates the Kesri Lehar—wave for justice—petition launched last year. The UN motions refer to general human rights abuses, which can be interpreted as including the death penalty. The intent of the motion is clear: it calls on the UK Government to assist in every way they can in ensuring the abolition of the death penalty in India.

Geoffrey Robinson: I acknowledge that technical point, but the motion’s heading highlights what the Kesri Lehar campaign wants us to debate and impress upon the Indian Government: the need for the abolition of the death penalty in India. The death penalty is abhorrent to the vast majority of Members, especially as we on this side of the House are, as socialists, opposed in principle to it. We want to make the call for its abolition loud and clear through the Punjabi community—I have a very successful one in Coventry—and it will be the principal burden of my remarks, if I am called to speak.

John McDonnell: Exactly, and this follows in the tradition of Governments of all political complexions in recent years, and of the representations that have been made to the Indian Government. I am grateful to the Government for their recent activities on this matter, which I will discuss later.
	This is an historic debate, but it would not be taking place today had it not been for the dedication, hard work and commitment of the Kesri Lehar campaigners, and I wish to pay tribute to them. Last year, when we received the first inkling that India was considering ending its eight-year moratorium on implementing the death penalty, members of the Punjabi community in our country, especially the Punjabi Sikhs, came together and launched the Kesri Lehar campaign. Since then, they have secured more than100,000 signatures to their petition to abolish the death penalty and address other human rights concerns.

Barry Sheerman: A large proportion of the Sikh community in Huddersfield passionately agrees with the motion, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. For eight years we all hoped and thought there would be no more
	capital punishment in India. We should note that the record on capital punishment—on the number of people killed—is far worse in China and the United States, but this is a very important debate, and I am pleased to give my full support to it.

John McDonnell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope that across the House we are all friends on this matter.
	The Kesri Lehar campaign organised a mass lobby of Parliament last autumn, and it has worked with human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Liberty, to press the Indian Government for the abolition of the death penalty. On behalf, I hope, of the whole House, I want to thank all the Kesri Lehar campaigners, many of whom have joined us in the Gallery today.

Heather Wheeler: I will visit the Sikh temples in Derby on Sunday to pick up a petition to bring to this Chamber next week or the week after, or whenever Mr Deputy Speaker will allow me to. It is interesting how this issue has captured the imagination in our local areas and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate.

John McDonnell: I am grateful for the work the hon. Lady is undertaking. When we visit the gurdwaras, it is interesting to see not only the range of men and women who support the campaign but the number of young people who have joined and led it recently.
	I raised the death penalty and human rights abuses in India in this House last year, but I do so today with an even greater sense of urgency. Why? India has started to execute people again. When India secured its independence from Britain, it retained its 19th century penal code, which included the death penalty for murder. Until the 1980s, capital punishment was implemented regularly. From then on, although death sentences were pronounced by Indian courts they were increasingly not put into practice. In 1980, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty should be used in the rarest of rare cases, which led eventually to an eight-year moratorium on the death penalty being implemented within India.

Jim Cunningham: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) and I have a large Punjabi community in Coventry, which is very concerned about the death penalty. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) agree that the British Government should be encouraging the Indian Government to honour and sign international treaties against the death penalty and, more importantly, to reform the police force? We have seen in the media instances of the police force not investigating serious crimes against women or not taking them seriously. Last night, I presented a petition on behalf of the Punjabi community not only in Coventry but nationally.

John McDonnell: I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend has undertaken in this campaign over the years—his involvement is not merely recent. It is interesting that although the debate is focused on the death penalty, it has emerged that there have been extra-judicial killings, too.

Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the Indian authorities have recently started to execute people again. Clearly, that was in the context of a terrorist attack that caused many lives to be lost. The precedent has been set, however, and there is now a real danger that many people who had been given a death sentence that had not been applied, and their families, will undergo a period of great difficulty and stress. That applies to many communities in India and not just the Punjabis.

John McDonnell: Exactly. I am sure that other Members will raise the question of what is happening with the Dalits and other groups.
	The eight-year moratorium lulled us into a false sense of security. Naively, many of us thought that although India retained the death penalty on the statute book the continuation of the moratorium was an indication that it would eventually be abolished once and for all. Unfortunately, that was a naive judgment and our hopes were dashed in the spring of last year when reports emerged that the Indian Government were moving to execute Balwant Singh Rajoana and, possibly, to authorise the execution of Professor Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar. That caused widespread concern among the Punjabi community in the UK, across many of our constituencies and across the world.
	I want to refer to the two cases, as they have been prominently mentioned in the media and carry immense significance around the world, the Rajoana case for its historical context and the Bhullar case because it is almost now a symbol of the injustice meted out to so many Sikhs in recent decades.
	Let me deal first with Balwant Singh Rajoana, a former member of the Punjabi police. He has publicly acknowledged his role in the killing of the chief Minister of the Punjab, Beant Singh, in 1995. He has refused to defend himself and refused legal representation, and he has not asked for mercy. However, Sikhs and Sikh organisations in gurdwaras have appealed for mercy on his behalf, and urged the Indian Government to appreciate the context of Balwant Singh’s actions and the feelings of the Sikhs at that time and now.
	Balwant Singh was party to killing Beant Singh, the chief Minister of the Punjab. We now know that Beant Singh personally commanded the police and security forces in the killing and disappearance of possibly more than 20,000 Sikhs—men, women and children. Faced with the failure of the Indian authorities to take action against the former chief Minister for his crimes against humanity, Balwant Singh and a co-conspirator took the law into their own hands. Nobody, including Balwant Singh, claims that he is innocent of the killing, but Sikh organisations, human rights lawyers and human rights groups are urging the Indian Government to take into account the context of his actions, the scale of the human suffering that the Sikhs were enduring at the time, and the anger that young men such as Balwant Singh felt at the failure of the Indian state to bring to justice the chief Minister responsible for the atrocities against the Sikhs in the Punjab. On that basis, they plead for understanding and mercy on Balwant Singh’s behalf and that the death penalty is avoided at all costs.
	If Balwant Singh Rajoana symbolises the suffering of the Sikhs in that period, Professor Bhullar symbolises the injustice meted out to Sikhs, to be frank, over the
	years at the hands of the Indian police and the judicial system. Professor Bhullar came to the attention of the Punjab police because he investigated the abduction and disappearance of a number of his own students. The disappearances were linked to the Punjab police. The resultant persecution of his family, with the disappearance of his own father and uncle and others, led him to flee to Germany for asylum. Tragically, the German authorities believed the assurance of the Indian Government that he would not face the death penalty, and he was returned to India.
	The German courts have now ruled that that deportation was wrong. Professor Bhullar has been in prison for 18 years. He has been convicted of involvement in an attempted political assassination solely on the basis of a confession, which he retracted, with not one of more than 100 witnesses identifying him at the scene, and on a split decision of the court judges. In split decisions in India, the practice of the courts is not to impose a death penalty, but Professor Bhullar has been sentenced, held in solitary confinement for eight years and, despite his deteriorating health, his plea for mercy has been rejected. Despite a further petition to the Supreme Court, the fear is that the Indian authorities could move to execute him at any time. This is a shocking miscarriage of justice waiting to happen unless we can intervene effectively.
	The fears for Balwant Singh Rajoana and Professor Bhullar prompted the launch of the Kesri Lehar campaign last year. Our fears were compounded when on 21 November India ended its moratorium on the death penalty and executed Ajmal Kasab. In December the United Nations voted for the fourth time for a resolution calling for a global moratorium on executions; 111 countries voted for the moratorium, but India voted against. That is another clear indication of its intent at that time to return to the implementation of the death penalty.
	A further execution by hanging has taken place on 9 February this year. There is a real risk therefore that, with more than 40 people now on death row in India, with 100 more sentenced to death each year, many more executions are likely to follow unless action is taken.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Gentleman just mentioned the UN vote. The Prime Minister has just come back from India and the UK Government and Governments around the world have high expectations of the future for India. What message does the hon. Gentleman think it sends to the rest of the world that India voted against the moratorium at the UN?

John McDonnell: The message was clearly interpreted by our communities, our constituents and the Kesri Lehar campaigners as showing that India is now intent on the restoration of the death penalty with its full force. That is our fear. The executions that have taken place have confirmed those fears.

Mark Lazarowicz: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate, which concerns many of our constituents throughout the country. Was not the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) also making the point that this campaign is important because India’s own standing in the world
	will be severely jeopardised if it proceeds in this way, and that it is in India’s own interests that the Indian Government change course?

John McDonnell: I could not concur more strongly. I shall discuss that point later in my speech.
	There is also concern that India is expanding the scope of the death penalty: new laws passed in 2011 provide for the death penalty for those who are convicted of terrorist attacks on oil and gas pipelines that result in death and, in Gujarat state, for those who are found guilty of making and selling illicit liquor.

Fiona Mactaggart: The list of crimes that attract the death penalty in India now also includes honour killing and, more recently, rape that leads to death, but campaigners against violence against women in India have not been impressed by those additions, because they do not provide the protection that vulnerable women need but are a reaction by the Government to the horrific violence meted out to a young woman on a bus in Delhi recently.

John McDonnell: That is the specific point I was about to make. We all abhor and condemn that appalling crime, but it should not be used as an excuse to implement the death penalty.
	The manner in which the Indian authorities have dealt with executions has also raised concern across the human rights community. The two recent executions were announced to the public after being carried out, which violates all international standards on the use of the death penalty and makes timely interventions and final appeals before execution almost impossible.
	Amnesty International points out that the use of the death penalty in India is “riddled with systemic flaws”. According to the briefing Amnesty International provided to Members for this debate, of particular concern under anti-terror legislation is the broad definition of terrorist acts for which the death penalty can be imposed. In addition, there are: insufficient safeguards on arrest; provisions that allow confessions made to the police to be admissible as evidence; obstacles to confidential communication with counsel; insufficient independence of special courts from Executive power; insufficient safeguards for the presumption of innocence; provisions for discretionary closed trials; sweeping provisions to keep secret the identity of witnesses; and limits on the right to review by a higher tribunal.
	In its briefing, Amnesty succinctly sums up why we abhor the death penalty and urges India to join those nations that have rejected its use, stating eloquently that the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life as enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights. It is arbitrary, discriminatory and can be inflicted upon the innocent. I would add that all the international evidence demonstrates that it is also ineffective as a deterrent to crime and can often result in terrible, irreversible miscarriages of justice. For all those reasons and as a friend of India—someone who has close family ties and community links with India—I urge the Indian Government to join now that community of nations that have renounced the use of the death penalty and have abolished it once and for all.
	I hope today that we can speak with one voice on this issue. By doing so, we may be able to impress better on India the need for change. So many MPs have supported the campaign not only because of their own personal conviction, but because they are reflecting the views put to them by many of their constituents. Somebody from the media argued that the reason so many MPs support the debate is they have Punjabi and Sikh constituents. Well, that is undoubtedly true. MPs are simply doing their job in representing their constituents’ views—that is what we are elected to do. It is also worth understanding why so many Punjabis and Sikhs have made representations to us. First, there is of course a real fear on their part that a number of their compatriots could be executed, and on humanitarian grounds they wish to prevent that.

Virendra Sharma: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, and on doing so at the right time. As he said, the reason all of us here support this cause is not that we are anti-India. We must kill the myth that we are anti-India or that we are interfering in India’s internal affairs. We are taking a matter of principle and fighting for the rights of the people living in India and abroad.

John McDonnell: I fully concur with my hon. Friend.

Adrian Bailey: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John McDonnell: You, Mr Deputy Speaker, are rightly concerned about the length of time I am taking, so this is the last intervention I will take.

Adrian Bailey: My hon. Friend talked about Members representing their Punjabi constituents. I have a petition with over 1,200 names on my desk, and what is significant about it is not only the number of Punjabi names, but the number of names of English origin, which I think reflects how the whole community in this country regards this policy in India. Does he agree that, if pursued, it will be damaging within not only the Indian diaspora in this country, but the indigenous and long-standing white community?

John McDonnell: I fully concur. I think that it will definitely be seen as a setback for us all.
	Secondly, there is understandable concern among the Punjabi community because of the abiding sense of injustice within the community about the historic human rights abuses endured in the 1980s and 1990s, for which there has been no proper redress, and the ongoing human rights abuses experienced in recent times, such as physical abuse by the police, evidence of torture in cells and deaths in custody. That has also been experienced, as I have said, by the Dalit community and others.
	Thirdly, people should also understand that the Sikh and Punjabi culture abhors the death penalty and human rights abuses. When the Sikh nation was established and the Darbar Sahib, or golden temple, was founded, the Sikh religion instilled in Punjabi culture a profound respect for life. Sikhs are always portrayed as warriors, but they were only warriors to defend their religion. During the period when there was an independent Punjabi nation, the death penalty did not feature in the law or governmental system and no one was put to
	death. That tradition of abhorrence of the death penalty and respect for life is reflected now in the Kesri Lehar petition calling for the abolition of the death penalty.
	What can we do to bring about reform? We must first recognise that the historical relationship between India and Britain means that the UK Government are uniquely placed to urge the Indian Government to end the death penalty. Therefore, I call upon the UK Government to use every forum and every mechanism of communication established with India, formal and informal, to press the Indian Government to halt the executions now and sign up to the UN convention opposing the death penalty.
	I wrote to the Prime Minister before his recent visit to India to urge him to raise the issue with the Indian Government, and I hope that today the Minister can report back on that and on the continuing pressure that successive Governments of different parties have put on the Indian Government. To add weight to the British Government’s representations, I urge them to raise the issue again with our European partners and to seek a joint representation from Europe on the subject. I urge the British Government, working with other Governments, to raise this call within the United Nations. With the UN Commission on Human Rights meeting imminently, this is an ideal time to put this back on the UN agenda.
	My final words are addressed to the Indian Government. I said in the debate last July that India is the largest democracy in the world, yet it now stands alone in the developing world by still supporting the death penalty. Since then, unfortunately, it has stepped backwards and recommenced implementing the death penalty. I appeal to India, the country of so many religions and value systems that value life, the country of Gandhi and non-violence, the country that now seeks to be a world leader, and to our Indian brothers and sisters in government there to embrace humanity by ending the state killing once and for all.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: As hon. Members can see, 10 Members wish to take part, plus the Front Benchers. We will move on to the next business no later than half-past 2, so I ask for some self-restraint on time, and if that is not forthcoming a time limit will be imposed.

Mark Pritchard: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on this very timely debate.
	I would like to start by paying tribute to the Sikh community in Hadley in my own constituency. I have regular interaction with not only ordinary members, as it were, of the Sikh community but its senior leadership. I find that interaction and dialogue very helpful, not least in being able to rise today to support this campaign.
	As we head towards the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and other important multilateral and bilateral meetings where India sits at the table, it is timely that it should be reminded that while it is the world’s largest democracy and a growing economy that is seeing expansion in many areas, not least its military, the maturity of a democracy is judged not on how big
	the army, the economy or the electorate are, but on how that democracy treats its minorities. India certainly has an issue—if not in reality, in perception—about how it treats its minorities, not least Sikhs, and, indeed, other religious faiths, including the Christian Church. While the federal Government may express their concerns and underscore their commitment to religious freedom and religious freedom of speech, it is important that the states themselves do not ascribe powers to themselves that inhibit and restrict those freedoms.
	I have no hesitation in supporting this campaign. I declare an interest in that I am the elected chairman of Parliamentarians for Global Action. One of the purposes of that group—I encourage all Members across the House to join if they are not a member—is to see the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. I was recently in Rome with other parliamentarians and representatives of other international bodies, not least the International Criminal Court itself in The Hague, to discuss this issue.
	It is important that India recognises that while it has medium-term United Nations ambitions for a bigger seat at the big table, it needs to ensure that it abides by the UN convention against torture and other cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment or punishment. It would be a big mistake for India to think that it can continue, perhaps with more gusto, to execute prisoners without the international community ensuring that the spotlight is put on to it. When so many positive things are happening in that country—that democracy—it would be unfortunate that there should be this unhelpful and retrograde distraction for it.
	I will keep my remarks very brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, in order to allow colleagues to speak. I conclude by saying that India is a close friend of the United Kingdom, and friends can be candid. As a candid friend of India, I think that, across parties, we are saying to that wonderful, beautiful and proud country that it is not in its own interests to bring back the death penalty in great numbers. There is a debate to be had about the speed with which the federal Government may move towards outlawing execution. It cannot be done overnight; it has to be done in consultation with other states and must clearly have cross-party support. That will not be an easy thing, but things worth fighting for are not always necessarily easy.
	I hope that the message sent out from the House today is that this Parliament is a close friend of the Indian Parliament. I hope that our parliamentary colleagues in India will ensure that the death penalty does cease. I pay credit to the Sikh community of this country and in my own constituency.

Pat McFadden: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Kesri Lehar campaign to abolish the death penalty in India, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) has mentioned the warm relationship between the UK and India, which has been a sovereign
	independent state for 65 years. Let us be clear from the beginning that no other Government can tell the Indian Government or Parliament what to do. It is a sovereign state with its own laws, elected Parliament and judicial system. The modern relationship between the United Kingdom and India is one of equals and of mutual respect. There is a great deal of interaction on trade, education and culture, and it is in that spirit of friendship and mutual respect that this debate is being held.
	Many thousands of my constituents originate from the Punjab—and from the city of Jalandhar in particular—where either they or their parents or grandparents were born. I have had the pleasure and honour of visiting India three times since being elected to this House in 2005. I have visited Jalandhar, where so many of my constituents have family roots. I helped to organise an education partnership between schools in Wolverhampton and in Punjab. I worked with the Punjabi Wolves football supporters club to foster a friendship agreement between Wolves and JCT football club of Punjab. I have met many people in India from non-governmental organisations and from the Union Government and state governments, and have been greeted everywhere with warmth and friendship. I was honoured to be able to pay a pilgrimage to Harmandir Sahib, the Golden Temple at Amritsar and spiritual home of the Sikh community throughout the world. That is an experience that I will never forget.
	Relations between our two countries are good, but we are having this debate because of the grave concerns of the large population of those of Indian origin in the UK, many thousands of whom, as I have said, I have the honour of representing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said, the Kesri Lehar petition has been signed by tens of thousands of people throughout the UK. Some of the signatures were presented to No. 10 Downing street in December and I was pleased to be able to speak at that day’s lobby to express my support for the campaign to abolish the death penalty in India.
	The campaign has arisen from the grave concerns of the thousands of people who have signed the petition, and those of the UK’s Indian population, particularly the Sikh community, about a number of issues in India. They are concerned about the treatment of some members of the Sikh community in India and, as my hon. Friend has said, about a lack of accountability and the lack of an investigation that holds widespread confidence into the events of 1984, when so many Sikhs were killed. They are also concerned about the death sentences passed on Sikhs. It is those issues that the Kesri Lehar campaign seeks to draw our attention to.
	The Sikh community in this country is a successful community. It plays a very positive role in our national life: it works hard, respects faith and family, and contributes a great deal to the UK. I am honoured to represent many thousands of Sikhs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, it is within the rights of our constituents and within our rights to take up issues that are of concern to them. The Sikh communities in Wolverhampton and many other parts of the country are very concerned about this issue.
	Attention has been drawn to the cases of Professor Singh Bhullar and Balwant Singh Rajoana, which were outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. Let me be clear that I do not seek to be the judge and jury in those cases or in any others; it is for
	the courts to determine guilt or innocence. However, I believe that there are certain principles that it is important to establish and that we can speak up for.
	The first principle is that justice should be carried out in a fair and transparent way. When facts are disputed, there should be proper investigations with results that can be trusted. Too often, that is not the case. Many of my constituents do not feel that that has happened in the cases that have been raised or over the wider events of 1984. They do not believe that the various commissions that have been launched have got to the truth. The pain of the events of 30 years ago is still very real and very raw for the Sikh community in the UK.
	Secondly, people should be accountable and responsible for their actions, no matter what positions of influence or power they hold in society. Thirdly, I believe that this country was right to cease the use of the death penalty many years ago and that we should seek to end its use in other countries. We should have a fundamental concern about the death penalty not only in India, but wherever it is used around the world. Amnesty International reports on its website that in 2011, some 20 states used the death penalty. That is down from about 30 states a decade before. There is progress in that a declining number of states are using the death penalty, but it is still being used too often in too many states.
	India’s Supreme Court said in 1980 that the death penalty should be used only in the
	“rarest of the rare cases”.
	Despite that, the death sentence has been passed regularly by courts since that time. In the past decade, about 130 death sentences a year have been passed. Therefore, the campaign goes on.
	I respect fully India’s sovereignty. As a friend of India, I hope that it will think again about the use of the death penalty and join the ranks of the nations that have abolished it. I hope that that happens and that it is a decision freely taken by India. If it takes that decision, it will be welcomed throughout the world.

Hugo Swire: I congratulate the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this debate. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), and I look forward to hearing the contributions of other hon. Members from both sides of the House.
	Let me state clearly from the outset that the Government strongly support the worldwide abolition of the death penalty. We believe that the death penalty undermines human dignity, that there is no conclusive evidence of its deterrent value, and that any miscarriage of justice leading to its imposition is both irreversible and irreparable.
	It is for those reasons that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office supports projects throughout the world that campaign against the death penalty. We continue to work actively towards global abolition, in line with our strategy for the abolition of the death penalty, by raising the issue bilaterally and through the EU and the UN. I believe we are closer to achieving that goal than we have ever been. In its most recent report, Amnesty International reported that 70% of the world’s
	countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. As we have heard, only 21 countries carried out executions in 2011. That is the second lowest number on record, and a third less than a decade ago.
	In line with that trend, the biennial UN resolution against the death penalty has attracted increasing support each year since the first resolution in 2007. In December last year it received 111 votes in favour out of 186, which was a record. The United Kingdom played an important part in that through lobbying by diplomatic missions and ministerial contacts, and that should be applauded.
	The death penalty in India is a complex issue and continues to be the subject of much debate across Indian society. India has a strong democratic framework that guarantees human rights within its constitution, as well as a functioning and independent judiciary. It was disappointing, however, that India’s de facto moratorium on the death penalty, which had existed for more than eight years, ended with the hangings of Mohammed Ajmal Kasab and Mohammad Afzal Guru last November and February this year respectively. Kasab and Guru were convicted of very serious crimes—involvement in the Mumbai attacks in 2008, and the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament—and it is important to remember the impact that such acts of terrorism have on the people of India.
	During my recent visit to India I visited the Taj hotel in Mumbai, one of the targets of the 2008 attacks where at least 31 people were killed. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited the Taj memorial and the police memorials commemorating the victims of the Mumbai attacks, and the issue was brought home to me when, exactly a week ago when I was still in India, 14 people were killed in a bomb attack in Hyderabad. Having just spent three days with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and seen the optimism and opportunities across India, such attacks are a shocking reminder of the terrorist threat that we face. That is why we are working more closely than ever with our colleagues in the Indian Government to combat that shared threat from wherever it emanates.

Mike Gapes: I agree with the Minister’s remarks about the impact of terrorism in India and elsewhere. He referred to his visit to India with the Prime Minister but did he, the Prime Minister, or anybody else from the Government take the opportunity to discuss the death penalty during that visit?

Hugo Swire: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, all will soon be revealed.
	It remains the British Government’s long-standing policy to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle, and I hope the Indian Government will re-establish a moratorium on executions in line with the global trend towards the abolition of capital punishment. When I was in Delhi last week, I reiterated the British Government’s position on the death penalty to India’s Foreign Secretary, Ranjan Mathai, the permanent under-secretary equivalent at the Ministry of External Affairs. We will also raise our concerns about the death penalty at the EU-India human rights dialogue, which we hope will take place soon.

Jim Cunningham: The Minister said that he raised the death penalty with the relevant Minister, but what response did he receive?

Hugo Swire: As the hon. Gentleman would expect, the permanent under-secretary listened to what I had to say. He was aware of our consistent position on this issue but stressed to me the very real fear in India created by acts of terrorism.

Richard Fuller: The Minister is being very generous with his time. May I press him a little on the consequences of this issue for the UK? For example, suppose a terrorism suspect from India is in the UK. If India moves forward with executions, what will be the UK Government’s position on extradition to India?

Hugo Swire: As my hon. Friend would expect, the Government would review the case on an individual basis. I cannot comment on a hypothetical case of that nature.

John Spellar: rose—

Hugo Swire: I am going to make some progress. The motion points out that the Indian Government have not ratified the United Nations convention against torture. Central to the British Government’s torture prevention policy is encouragement to countries such as India to sign, ratify and effectively implement that convention and its optional protocol. Not only does the convention define what is meant by an act of torture, it obliges countries to take measures to prevent such acts. Such measures include legislating to make torture a criminal offence, educating officials on the prohibition of torture, conducting prompt and impartial investigations where there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture has taken place, and providing redress and compensation to victims.
	The optional protocol provides an important additional layer of monitoring and reporting to prevent torture from happening in any place of detention by allowing visits from national and international monitoring organisations. For those reasons, we continue to call on the Indian Government to expedite the ratification of the United Nations convention against torture and its optional protocol, and adopt robust domestic legislation to that effect. The United Kingdom made a specific recommendation on that issue during India’s universal periodic review in May last year. The EU delegation in Delhi has also hosted a number of events on the importance of ratifying the convention.
	While not directly related to the abolition of the death penalty, right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that India is not a state party to the Rome statute to the International Criminal Court. India has expressed its reservations and said that it does not see ratification of the ICC as a priority. That is a strongly held view. The British Government are a strong supporter of the ICC and we actively promote universal ratification. We believe it is in all our interests to support the ICC, which can help prevent devastating and irreparable damage caused by the most serious crimes in the international community, and extend the protection it offers to citizens and state parties.
	Concerns have been raised about the treatment of the Sikh community in India, and let me say how proud and privileged I felt to visit Amritsar and the golden temple with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week. I understand that it was the first time a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has visited the golden
	temple, and spending time in the garden of remembrance at Jallianwala Bagh was a particularly moving experience for us all.
	During my visit I heard about the prominent role and contribution of the Sikh community in India. The head of the Indian planning department is Sikh, and Sikhs are prominent in the security forces. Indeed, the Indian Prime Minister is a Sikh. Members across the House need no reminding of the respected and thriving Sikh community in the United Kingdom that has such a long and proud history. It is also a community that will be following today’s debate with close interest.

John Spellar: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), along with other colleagues who have secured this debate. My hon. Friend and I have campaigned over the decades for the rights of the Sikh community, sometimes to the slight astonishment of some of our colleagues that we can work so well together. I was pleased to be with my hon. Friend in December when we presented a petition at Downing street, along with our hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), representatives from the community and Amnesty International, which, over the years has played an honourable and prominent role in several campaigns in support of human rights in India, particularly for the Sikh community.
	I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington in congratulating Kesri Lehar—wave for justice—on the success of the petition that has attracted considerable support. As my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) pointed out, such support is found not only among the Sikh community but much more widely, and the petition has secured considerable publicity for this worthy cause. Many of those from the community are in Westminster today to observe the debate and show their support for the campaign.
	Securing 100,000 names on a petition requires a huge amount of work and a lot of organisation, and our appreciation of that effort by Kesri Lehar should be properly recorded. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington have substantial Sikh populations—many are second, third or even fourth generation. We should also record that, in the past year, we have lost two prominent and respected members of that community from Parliament: Marsha Singh, the MP for Bradford West, and my great friend Tarsem King—Lord King of West Bromwich—who was previously leader of my council, Sandwell, which, incidentally, is twinned with Amritsar. I pay tribute to both of them.
	Within the Sikh community there is an overwhelming concern about repression in the Punjab and the rights of those living there. That feeling was particularly strong in the difficult years of the emergency following the storming of the golden temple in Operation Blue Star and the murder of Indira Ghandi. There were a host of atrocities in the Punjab at that time, widespread abuse of human rights, much loss of life, and rape and torture. Many disappeared, with their families having no idea as to their fate. The families feel that they can never have
	closure until they know what happened to their loved ones. We know from the history of Ireland how devastating that can be.
	In May last year there was a significant increase in tension and great fear in the population in the Punjab when it was believed that Professor Bhullar and Balwant Singh Rajoana would be executed and the authorities instituted a major crackdown. The concern at the fear expressed in the Punjab manifested itself here most visibly in the sea of orange flags in the midlands showing solidarity with their fellow Sikhs. Lord King, a moderate figure who was by no means hostile to India, visited family in the Punjab at that time. I remember him describing graphically the concerns and fears of those in his community there.
	More recently, that concern has resurfaced with the case of Balwant Singh and the possibility of his being hanged, especially following the regrettable end of the informal moratorium and the recent executions of Mohammad Afzal Guru and Ajmal Kasab. The Minister will know of the concern in the Kashmiri community about whether they received adequate representation at their trials.
	As a former Minister with responsibility for the armed forces, aviation and Northern Ireland, let me be clear that the Opposition oppose terrorism. India and other countries on the Indian sub-continent have suffered grievously from terrorism—the Minister rightly drew attention to the atrocities in Mumbai—but executing Balwant Singh, Professor Bhullar and others would not end terrorism, but instead damage the image of India, which has been making huge progress on being considered rightly as a modern progressive state with a major role in the world.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has rightly identified the concerns of the German courts at the decision to deport Professor Bhullar. Will the Minister in this instance expand on his reply to the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller)? My understanding is that the long-standing and consistent policy of the British Government under all parties is that we will not deport someone to another country where there is a risk of them being executed. I am offering the Minister the opportunity to clarify that for the hon. Gentleman and the House.

Hugo Swire: We have no standing extradition treaty with India. I shall repeat what I have said: we would look on those things on a case-to-case basis.

John Spellar: I am slightly astonished at that.

Mike Gapes: Is it not a fact that, when countries have the death penalty—for example, the United States—the British Government must seek an assurance that it would not apply? Otherwise, the courts in this country will never allow anybody to be extradited to countries when there is a risk of the death penalty. The Home Office has had problems over many years in getting people out of this country because of the bad human rights records of many countries around the world.

John Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend, the previous Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for that clarification. That is exactly my understanding of the position, and it is useful that he has made it clear.
	The Minister said that he raised his concerns with senior officials during his recent visit to India. However, will he clarify the concerns expressed to the Indian authorities by others on that visit and by the Foreign Office elsewhere? Were those concerns raised by the Prime Minister during his visit to India, which included a visit to Amritsar?
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) rightly stated, the number of countries using the death penalty has gone down. As the Minister said, 70% of countries have either formally or in effect renounced the death penalty. The commitment of countries around the world was shown clearly by the vote in the UN on a moratorium. It would be a significant step for India, as a major player on the international scene and the world’s largest democracy, not just to reinstate the moratorium formally, which would be welcome, but to abolish the death penalty. India is poised to play a major role in world affairs in the coming decades and such a move would considerably enhance its authority.

Bob Stewart: Does the right hon. Gentleman have any knowledge of Indian public opinion on the matter? Does the Indian public want the death penalty to be abolished? Public opinion would, of course, be a major influence on the Indian Government.

John Spellar: I do not have the polling information immediately to hand. It is clear from the debates that took place in this country that it took us a long while to come to that decision, but no Government or party has sought to turn the clock back. The death penalty in its finality never allows for the prospect of error, and confessions can be obtained under duress or torture—that has happened in this country. People who have been released because they had been unjustly convicted would, in previous times, have been executed. That goes through to public opinion. Quite apart from other aspects of the death penalty, its finality and the inability to remedy injustices is the reason why two thirds of countries have taken the correct decision not to use it.
	As has been stressed, a continuing theme of British policy under this and previous Governments has been not only to abolish the death penalty in the UK, but to campaign against it in all countries, including in the US, our great ally. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) was right that, despite our strong relationship with the US and our huge respect for its legal system, we demand absolute assurances that the federal authorities will guarantee that the death penalty will not be applied even for offences that could attract it.
	I congratulate Ministers on not only the general campaign that they have been running, but their representations on the specific cases of Balwant Singh and Professor Bhullar, and I thank the Minister for his recent letter on this, which makes clear the actions they have been taking, not just last year but more recently.
	While the death penalty is hugely important and has obviously played a significant part in this debate, it is not the only issue of concern, either generally in the community or for the petitioners. I am pleased that the UK is active in encouraging the improvement of the treatment of minority communities in India. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has been campaigning for a long time on this issue. We understand
	that the British High Commission has discussed minority rights issues with the Indian National Commission for Minorities, and I hope that we are making some progress on that.
	I am pleased also that the Minister made a strong case for India, along with other countries, to sign and ratify the Rome treaty setting up the International Criminal Court, which is another laudable aim of this petition. I hope that the Government will have some success in persuading those countries along that path. We also welcome previous assurances from Foreign Office Ministers that these issues have been raised in the annual India-EU human rights dialogue—the Minister mentioned that this work was undertaken not only directly, but through the EU. I hope that the Minister will be able to report progress in the future on the discussions with the Indian authorities; let us know when the next meeting for those discussions will take place; tell us what progress we are making on India’s security legislation and the reports of a significant number of cases of torture by police and security authorities; and report on what progress has been made, not only in ratifying the convention against torture, but adopting robust domestic legislation to that effect.
	I shall conclude in order to allow other hon. Members to cover issues that will have been raised very strongly by their constituents. I congratulate Kesri Lehar on its campaign, which has united the community whatever people’s broader views, and gained wide public awareness of the issues that we are discussing today. I also reaffirm the united determination of this Parliament to secure justice for the Sikh community of the Punjab.

Richard Fuller: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this debate. I also congratulate the signatories to the Kesri Lehar petition which has been extremely influential in securing the debate.
	Many hon. Members have talked about the importance of this issue to their constituents of Punjabi origin, and that is certainly true for my home town of Bedford and for Kempston, but this issue affects the whole community in the United Kingdom. We should all embrace it as a matter of importance. I draw Members’ memories back to the part of the Olympic opening ceremony that celebrated all that is great about our open, multicultural society, when Tim Berners-Lee said, “This is for everyone”, and talked about the interconnectedness of modern society. One of the things that makes our country unique and so special is that we can draw on people’s experiences from their origins around the world, and it is right that this Parliament, the mother of Parliaments, should debate this issue today.
	We debate the issue in a spirit of humility, because we are talking about the legislation and rules of another sovereign country, which is—as the hon. Gentleman said in his opening speech—the world’s largest democracy. We need to be extremely respectful and humble in the representations that we make here today, but we also need to carry forward determination and conviction from our own experiences of the death penalty in the UK, and the ways in which politicians over the ages
	here worked, on principle and for practical reasons, to seek the abolition of the death penalty. In that there is a message for modern Indian politicians.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about being respectful of the sovereignty of other nations, but we can also point out that, according to Professor Steven Pinker, the professor of cognitive psychology at Harvard university, western Europe is now the safest place to live in history in terms of person on person violence and even war and interstate violence. That is in a society with the complete absence of the death penalty. It is worth pointing that out to other places in the world to encourage them to change, rather than demanding that they change.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Gentleman makes the point perhaps more eloquently than I could. This is a matter not just of principle for many hon. Members, but a matter of practical impact. The existence of the death penalty can exacerbate situations and stimulate other criminal activity as a response.
	I wish to make a couple of points that perhaps go a bit further than the petition in making representations to our friends in India. Although a moratorium is desirable, the intent should really be outright abolition, because history teaches us that moratoriums are not always an effective long-term solution. As has already been mentioned, India has had a moratorium, and it has ended—the consequences of that remain to be seen. We have also had the experience of the United States, where the Supreme Court issued what was essentially a moratorium. That went away, and before George W. Bush became president he was one of the most excited and active executioners of people under the US criminal code when he was governor of Texas. There are pressures on politicians and the judiciary when there is still the option of ending the moratorium. Modern societies need to strive to achieve abolition if we are to accomplish both the in-principle benefits and the practical benefits of the elimination of the death penalty.

Bob Stewart: If someone is executed, they can very quickly become a martyr. Martyrdom by execution is rather sad: I would prefer to see people punished by imprisonment. I hate the idea that people become martyrs, especially when they have done great wrong.

Richard Fuller: My hon. Friend obviously speaks with great experience from before he became a Member of Parliament in dealing in highly conflicting situations with people of different religious and ethnic backgrounds in Europe. Those differences can lead to extremism and the actions of governing authorities can create martyrdom situations that exacerbate divisions. Any healing democracy always wishes to heal the divisions within society. The death penalty is not a friend of that aim; it is an opponent. As we can see from the petition, there are real concerns that the existence of the death penalty in India will exacerbate the tensions within Indian society rather than achieving a better long-term solution.
	The human aspect for those under threat of the death penalty must also be a considerable concern to us. It is inhumane treatment to leave a human being on death row for many years. No one should have to go through
	the psychological trauma of not knowing if or when their appeal may be heard and they may be executed. That is not a mark of a decent society.

Jim Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman mentioned George Bush, and some years ago, when I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee, we visited Huntsville in Texas, where most of the staff were against the death penalty. People had been on death row for 17 or 18 years, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is utterly inhumane.

Richard Fuller: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for that point. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) mentioned the recent reaction in India to the issue of rape. If there is still the possibility that the death penalty can be applied, and if its application would have political currency in certain situations or be popular at a particular moment, politicians will use that as a reason to bring it back. It may be completely ineffective, or out of step with what is needed at the time, but it is always alluring to politicians who believe that the death penalty has popular support to seize on it as a remedy. A moratorium always leaves that possibility: abolition removes it.

Adrian Bailey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that appalling episode occurred while the death penalty was in existence, and, indeed, while all indications pointed to its greater implementation? Is that not a demonstration of the ineffectiveness of the death penalty to deal with such incidents, and a reflection of a wider problem that has to be dealt with in a more sophisticated way than the crude implementation of this policy?

Richard Fuller: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what has already been said about the situation in India with regard to rape. The broader point is that there are lessons for politicians of all countries about the possible use of the death penalty in political discourse. The hard-learned lessons in this country are that we end up with a more effective and fairer criminal justice system if we abolish the death penalty. There is no stopping point along the way to abolition that will ultimately provide the security of those two outcomes: there has to be outright abolition.

Angus MacNeil: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very kind. To back up his argument from history, again from Steven Pinker, we can draw on the example of England. Some 800 years ago, the death penalty was commonplace and there was a hangman’s hill in every village throughout the British Isles. An Englishman was 50 times more likely to be killed by a fellow Englishman in a society that had the death penalty than they are in the modern day when there is no death penalty.

Richard Fuller: That is an interesting statistic, which I am sure also pertains to Scotland.
	Another point that I humbly submit for our friends in India to consider is that this issue shines a light on the general operation of the judicial system in India. Those who study the British empire—I have read only a few books on it—learn that the English judicial system is one of the gifts we gave to the world. I am sure we talk that up a lot, but there is a lot of truth in the fact that
	many people around the world see the British judicial system as a reliable and trusted friend when they are in conflict situations. There are issues relating to the Indian judicial system that exacerbate concerns about the existence of the death penalty. I have mentioned the implications for the mental health and well-being of people on death row. With the case load in Indian courts so backed up, what is it that says that a certain case should move forward or not? How are those decisions made? What is the due process in a system that finds itself not fully capable of dealing with its work load?
	Constituents of mine who have had legal disputes in India have always made the point that they have had to go back to India to deal with them. Without putting too fine a point on it, sometimes that is because of issues to do with money in the criminal justice system. I have no idea whether that is true and certainly, of course, none of my constituents has been involved in any of that, but it is interesting that there is that question. Our friends in India, being part of a great hope for the world, need to address those issues. The petition shines a light on how the world will look on the decisions made regarding the death penalty in India as a result of those issues.
	The Minister kindly responded to the question of what India moving forward with the death penalty would mean for UK relations in certain circumstances. He was right to talk about considering individual cases on an individual basis. However, if India became a more active proponent of the death penalty, that would have significant implications for how the UK would look at extraditing people to India. We do not want the death penalty to affect our relationship when there is so much that is positive that we want to talk about, and we do not want to have ongoing disputes on this issue. I therefore hope that the British Government would look very dimly on extraditing any person to India that might result in their being subject to the death penalty, and seek assurances that it would not be applied in any such cases.
	I again thank the signatories to the petition. This issue may be of particular concern to our Sikh community, but it is a concern for all of us in this open United Kingdom and for all of us in Parliament. May we together send the message to our colleagues who sit in the Indian Parliament that on the issue of the death penalty it is often the politicians who have to lead public opinion, not the other way around. They should have the courage to halt executions immediately, and to step forward not just to reinstate a moratorium but to effect outright abolition.

Fabian Hamilton: I was pleased to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in his application to the Backbench Business Committee for this debate. As hon. Members have said, it is very important that we in this Chamber make clear our views on the death penalty still being in use in India and around the world. We should stand up and show that we totally disapprove of that, and say that all nations should abolish the death penalty.
	It is tragic that India, the largest democracy in the world, still uses the death penalty. The worst offenders are China, which is not a democracy, and Iran, which
	executes more people per head of population, including children, than any other nation. That is not a democracy, either. It is sad to me, and I am sure to many other hon. Members, that the United States is the leading democracy that still uses the death penalty. Our purpose today is to represent the views of the many Sikh and Punjabi citizens in our constituencies, as well as those who are not of Sikh or Indian origin, to show that we want to see India, that great nation and friend of the United Kingdom, abolish the death penalty for good. Many Members have given examples of why that should happen.
	I pay tribute to those who started the Kesri Lehar—wave for justice—petition, which many hon. Members and I presented at No. 10 Downing street just before Christmas. In a way, that was the start of the process that led us to today’s debate, and we have had some superb contributions so far.
	I am sure that many hon. Members recall Danny Boyle’s award-winning 2008 movie, “Slumdog Millionaire”. The opening scene shows a poor young man being tortured in a police station—an unfortunate but, according to some evidence, accurate image of what perhaps occurs in India. Many Members have already said that the death penalty is an inhuman and degrading punishment. It is irreversible and can be inflicted on the innocent. As many examples provided by hon. Members have shown, it has never deterred crime more effectively than other punishments. It should therefore be abolished in India, as it should be in all other countries. India should honour articles 3 and 5 of the universal declaration of human rights: the right to life and not to be tortured or subject to any cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said in his opening speech.
	Let us look at the background to India’s use of the death penalty. On independence in 1947, India retained the 1861 penal code, which provided the death penalty for murder. It has been estimated that between 3,000 and 4,000 executions occurred in India between 1950 and 1980. It is more difficult to understand the impact of the death penalty since the 1980s. The international community has moved further towards abolishing the death penalty. On 19 November 2012, 110 countries approved a UN General Assembly draft resolution calling for a moratorium on all executions. India was part of a tiny minority that voted to retain capital punishment, arguing for it to be used sparingly and in cases of particularly heinous crimes. On 21 November 2012, India ended its unofficial eight-year moratorium on executions when it hanged Ajmal Kasab and followed that up on 9 February 2013 by hanging Afzal Guru. Both executions occurred in secrecy, with the families being informed only after they had taken place—that would shock anybody who was not already shocked by the use of the death penalty.
	Pranab Mukherjee, India’s President, has now ordered the death penalty for seven convicts in the past seven months, which is more than any other Indian President in the past 15 years. India is currently reporting one death penalty sentence every third day, according to The Times of Indiathis month. That all happened before the recent knee-jerk reaction to the change in the law to extend the death penalty following the horrific rape and murder in Delhi on 16 December 2012, which my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)
	mentioned. Human rights activists in India are worried that this precedent could affect the 500 or so people now on death row in India, including political prisoners such as Professor Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Balwant Singh Rajoana. As of 11 February 2013, 476 convicts were on death row in India.
	I wish to discuss the case of Professor Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar a bit more. Although many hon. Members have mentioned him specifically, I know from my constituents that his case is a real cause célèbre; he has been tortured and treated inhumanely in prison, all for bringing to the public’s attention his concern about the disappearance of 42 of his university students. Professor Bhullar was a lecturer at Guru Nanak Dev engineering college in Ludhiana, but he felt he had to flee India for a safer place in 1994, following threats to his life and harassment from the police for bringing this issue to the attention of the authorities and the media. As we have heard, he went to Germany, arriving on 18 December 1994. However, he was detained because the German authorities were not convinced of his claim, mainly because he had false papers on him, and he was deported, under escort, from Germany on 17 January 1995 and handed over to the Indian police at Indira Gandhi airport, New Delhi, by Lufthansa staff.
	The Indian authorities gave specific assurances to the German authorities that Professor Bhullar had nothing to fear if he was returned to India and that he would not be tortured. However, as we know, he was arrested on his arrival and has now been in prison for more than 18 years, the past eight of them in solitary confinement, dealing with the daily threat of hanging. The professor’s mental health has deteriorated over the past two years and has now reached a life-threatening state. By deporting someone to a death penalty-prone country, Germany violated the European convention on human rights and remains morally obliged to do all it can now to seek the professor’s immediate release. Professor Bhullar was examined by a police-assigned medical doctor recently. Although the professor is a highly educated man, his medical examination document is co-signed by him with a thumbprint.
	We know that the case against Professor Bhullar is highly dubious; it is based on information that has not been properly corroborated, with the prosecution having offered no corroboration at all. None of its 133 witnesses identified Professor Bhullar. Many witnesses actually claimed he was not the man they had seen. One prosecution witness, a rickshaw worker in Delhi, informed the court that he had no knowledge of the case but had been threatened and forced by the police to provide a false statement. Almost every legal system in the world is based on the idea of proof beyond reasonable doubt and respects procedures in order to obtain safe evidence. The Supreme Court of India seems to have departed from those things in the most important of all cases—that of the death penalty—thus setting an unfortunate new precedent for Indian law.
	I am aware that we are short of time today, and I do not want to take up too much more of the House’s time, but I am concerned that there is corruption in the Indian legal system. According to Transparency International, judicial corruption is attributable to factors in India such as
	“delays in the disposal of cases, shortage of judges and complex procedures, all of which are exacerbated by a preponderance of new laws”.
	However, no case of judicial corruption has ever been put on trial in India; under the Indian system, it is almost impossible to charge or impeach a judge. Another factor at work in India is the low ratio of judges per million of the population; there are as few as 12 or 13 judges per 1 million of population in India, as against figures of 107 in the United States—no surprise there—75 in Canada and 51 in the United Kingdom. The high work load in India encourages delays and adjournments on frivolous grounds. The judicial system, including judges and lawyers, has developed a vested interest in delays, as well as corruption; it promotes a collusive relationship between the different players.
	I have been privileged in the past two and a half years—nearly three now—to chair the all-party group on British Sikhs. In that role, I have tried to bring to this House and to my fellow Members of Parliament some of the issues that Sikhs throughout the UK raise with me and with other MPs. These Sikhs are British citizens who form an integral part of so many constituencies and make such a huge contribution to the daily life in our constituencies. I am happy to say that in my constituency I have brought the Sikh community together with the big Jewish community that I represent, because they have so many values in common. Among those values, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said, is that of respect for life which precludes violence of one person against another. When one goes to a gurdwara, as many of us have done, one feels that sense of respect for one another, and the respect of men for women and of women for men; it is a very welcoming and friendly environment.
	I echo the comments made by the other Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), about visits to the golden temple in Amritsar. I went with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the former Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, on one of the Committee’s visits in 2006. Again, I felt that spirituality, sense of warmth and sense of equality as we walked around. So it was really good to see the Prime Minister of our country walking through the golden temple—through that holy place—barefoot, as people have to be, in his suit, as we had to be, and with his head covered. Although, clearly, I am not a Sikh, I was so moved by my visit that I rang one of my close friends in my constituency to tell him that I was standing there at that moment. He said to me, “God bless you for being there.”
	So this debate is not about attacking our good friend, India; it is not about saying that India is a terrible place. We want India to be there with us in the group of nations that say that the inhumanity of the death penalty should be abolished. There should not be a moratorium; there should be a complete abolition. We want India to succeed. India is growing in importance in the world. India is our close friend, and many of us have close friends who are of Indian origin and who have family in India. I have visited the place three times now, so I hope that the result of this debate is that our Government will, as the Minister has said, put further pressure on the Indian Government. I hope that Members of Parliament will talk to their colleagues and friends in India, including perhaps those in the Lok Sabha, the Indian Parliament. I hope that we will talk to families we represent and that they will talk to their friends and family in India to
	change Indian public opinion about this important issue. I hope that India will see the sense of abolishing, once and for all, this inhuman and evil act of execution.

David Ward: Like everyone else, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for sponsoring and supporting this debate, which is important not only internationally, but to many people in the UK. I have busily been trying to edit my comments to avoid repeating what previous speakers have said and to save a bit of time, so what I say today will not be the only thing I have to say on this issue; it will be the bits that are left. I may avoid repetition, but there may be a few pauses in my speech as I try to make the best of what I have.
	We have had an overwhelming response to the petition, with well over 100,000 signatures nationwide. Some of my constituents have travelled all the way from Bradford for this debate, and I hope they are viewing it in the Chamber. We are going to No. 10 to present the Prime Minister with an additional petition of 2,000 signatures from local people in Bradford and the surrounding area, calling for the abolition of the death penalty in India. Many people in Bradford East feel strongly about this issue, and it is important to highlight the fact that those signatories are from all walks of life. They find the death penalty abhorrent, and the issue speaks to everyone, no matter what community they are from.
	There are many long-established arguments for and against the death penalty, some of which have been mentioned today. I do not intend to go through them again. We have all been well briefed for the debate by Amnesty International and other organisations, and the evidence shows that despite the comments by the Indian Supreme Court in 1983, there are nearly 500 people on death row in India today. For the record, it is important to note that we do not condone the actions of people who illegally take or endanger lives, no matter what their cause, but it is also vital to highlight the fact that the death penalty is wrong and should not be part of any judicial process in any part of the world.
	A matter that has not been touched on, apart from in a passing reference by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), is the difficult question of a nation criticising another nation. We need to be careful not to appear holier than thou, especially when we are criticising other democracies. Yes, we have abolished the death penalty and we can therefore speak with some authority on that matter, but we must be careful none the less, because I believe that such events as the Iraq war reduced our moral authority. It had many tragic consequences, one of which was that it reduced our moral authority in the eyes of the international community. Whether we are talking about arms sales, foreign interventions or prevention of terrorism legislation, we need to be sure that we can speak with authority, and we therefore need to be careful about what we do. I was delighted to see the Prime Minister’s statement about the deeply shameful event in Amritsar in 1919, but we are still waiting for Tony Blair to make an apology for what has happened far more recently.
	My key point is that we must be ever vigilant about what we do and how we behave. The message from this debate needs to go out not just as a message from a relatively small group of Back Benchers on a Thursday
	afternoon; it needs to be a message from the Government. If it is to have any authority, however, we must constantly watch what we are doing, to ensure that we are above reproach ourselves. When I was in the west bank recently, I challenged the forcible removal of Bedouins from the land that they had lived on for hundreds of years, but the question was thrown back at me: “What about how you treat the Travellers at Dale Farm?” We are debating this matter here in the Chamber today, but we are also being listened to by the world, and we must take care not to appear righteous when we have not earned the right to do so.
	As a liberal, I believe that it is our intrinsic right and, more importantly, our fundamental duty to speak up for all people, and especially for minorities who do not have suitable champions for their cause and who face persecution, wherever in the world that might occur and no matter what entrenched views or self-interest they might be battling against. The oppressors often have powerful weapons at their disposal to stifle debate. For the whole of my political career, I have fought and campaigned against prejudice and injustice, at local level in my constituency and internationally, and I welcome the opportunity that this debate provides today. I thank other hon. Members for turning up in such numbers today—there were more here earlier—because it is crucial that this “small-l liberal” issue should be raised.
	I have touched on the necessity for India to uphold the basic human rights that are espoused in the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This is an important issue for my constituents, especially those in the Sikh community, who have long borne the brunt of judicial and societal discrimination in parts of India. We are fortunate to have more than 5,000 people from the Sikh community living in Bradford. They make a vital contribution to the social, religious and economic fabric of the local area, and it is appalling that those vibrant and flourishing communities are not treated with the same dignity and respect for human rights in all parts of the world as they are in Bradford.
	The number of states that still have execution as part of their judicial process is thankfully now relatively small, but there are still far too many. It is an outdated and barbaric penalty, and although only a handful of states now use it, there are still too many.
	Over the past few years, I have been approached by a number of constituents about the cases involving Balwant Singh Rajoana and Professor Bhullar. I know those cases well, and I am sad that those people are still on death row. I must be honest and tell the House, however, that on researching this issue more thoroughly, I was deeply shocked to discover the sheer scale of the human rights abuses that the Indian Government have not acted against, over many years. I am a member of Amnesty International, and I regularly receive the evidence that it produces. It is shocking to learn of the extensive use of forced evictions, the excessive use of force, arbitrary arrest and detention, and the fundamental lack of due process that are still prevalent in India. Amnesty states:
	“Impunity for abuses and violations remained pervasive.”
	The continuing existence of India’s controversial Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act gives the Indian army arbitrary powers and near-immunity from prosecution.
	I have been vocal in the past on the subject of Kashmir, and I was aware that of the scale of human rights abuses in Indian-occupied Kashmir, but not of their prevalence in wider India, especially against members of the Sikh community.
	India is the third largest economy in the world, and will be an indispensible trading partner for Britain and the EU.

John Hemming: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. For the hon. Gentleman just to walk in and intervene in this way is discourteous to everyone else in the Chamber. I understand that he wants to make an intervention, but he must be in the Chamber for at least five minutes before he does so. I am not making a personal attack on him, but he must show good manners to everyone else.

David Ward: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	India’s growing status in the world, its growing economy and its importance to Britain and the EU are no excuse for not doing anything about this matter. They provide an imperative for ensuring that the crucial link between our two countries can be used as a lever to bring about change in India. When we are seeking to improve our own economy, particularly through exports and international trade, the temptation is there, but there is a danger that we hold back for fear of offending a foreign economic power with which we feel we need to develop closer links. It would be immoral, in my view, if growing trade links were used as an excuse for holding back on deserved criticism.
	It is crucial for today’s debate that pressure is placed on the Indian Government— not by a group of Back Benchers or petitioners, but by this Government—to uphold basic human rights as a fundamental policy and procedure. We need to outlaw this terrible death penalty once and for all. It is one of the most inhumane and abhorrent punishments used in today’s world—and it needs to end.

John Hemming: When I listened to my hon. Friend’s speech on television earlier, I noticed him stressing the importance of our role as a Parliament in commenting on what happens in other countries. Does he agree with me, however, that on issues such as the death penalty in India or the rule of law in Kashmir, it is right for all Parliaments to be committed to improving human rights throughout the world?

David Ward: That is essential. My earlier point was that if we are to make criticisms, particularly of other democracies, we need to be cleaner than clean and we need to ensure that our record is clean in all respects so that we can speak with moral authority on these crucial issues affecting so many parts of the world.

Fiona Mactaggart: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others on securing this debate. I am proud to speak in it as the Member of Parliament who probably represents more members of the Sikh community than any of my colleagues.
	Earlier today, a couple of hours ago, when I complained about Slough’s rail service to London, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), suggested that I had not made similar complaints under the last Government. He was wrong. I have been making this complaint for 15 years. I mention this because I think that his cynical attitude to politics is absolutely the opposite attitude to that of those people who have promoted the Kesri Lehar petition and have encouraged us to debate this issue here in Parliament. They believe that we can make a difference; they believe that Members of Parliament uniting across the parties can play a role in persuading the Indian Government to change their mind.
	I know that representatives of the Indian Government will feel tempted to fall back into the lazy assumption—cynically, like the rail Minister—of saying “Oh, this is a former colonial power, so it would say that, wouldn’t it?” From listening to this debate, it is clear that we have been able to demonstrate that what we are saying is not just an expression of a left-over bit of British colonialism, telling India what to do, but an expression of something that every democratically elected member of any Parliament in the world has a responsibility to do—tell other countries not how to run their affairs, but how to uphold basic international human rights standards. That is what we are doing here, and it is great to hear so many powerful and passionate speeches doing precisely that.
	As we have heard, the move towards the abolition of the death penalty has become stronger and stronger. Of those countries that still retain it on their statute books, 35 do not in fact use the death penalty. That is what some of us thought India was moving towards. Following the rarest of the rare pronouncements at the beginning of the ’80s and following the moratorium, we thought India would be in that group of countries and would start the journey towards abolition. We thought that until the more recent executions of AjmalKasaband AfzalGuru over the last two years.
	We have also heard today about the cases of Balwant Singh Rajoana and Professor Bhullar. Those cases move great passions among people, and there is a great deal of concern about it. The case of Professor Bhullar is particularly concerning because the German authorities did what Britain does, has always done and, I hope, will continue to do, although the Minister was not absolutely clear about it in his remarks. By that, I mean ensuring that if someone faces extradition to a country that retains the death penalty, there is an absolute commitment not to using it in that case.

Hugo Swire: I hesitate to state again what I said earlier, particularly when the hon. Lady has been a Minister in the Home Office and should be aware of it, but it is absolutely the case that for a requested extradition to a country that uses a death penalty, our policy is to seek assurances that that penalty will not be implemented. As I said, if such assurances are not forthcoming, Ministers have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether extradition should nevertheless take place.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am sure that the last sentence is absolutely right. In my experience, Ministers have decided not to proceed in every case, and I hope that this Government will continue that tradition of decision. I referred to this matter because Germany decided in that way.

Richard Fuller: If I may say so to the hon. Lady, this is precisely the point. If we wish to decide on a case-by-case basis, as the Minister rightly said, and if India goes down this current route, it will necessarily complicate our relationship with India. There will be consequences for our relationships with India unless the Indian Parliament looks at this issue very seriously again and makes the changes that Members are asking it to do.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I also wanted to make the point that Germany got that commitment, yet we know that that commitment is at risk of not being fulfilled in this case. That is something I am very concerned about. We must keep pressing on the principled issue, which is that international human rights standards are not things that can be conveniently negotiated, as they are standards that we need to be at the forefront of upholding.
	Speaking as someone who has campaigned strongly on issues relating to violence against women and has asked for more effective prosecution of such cases, tougher sentences and so forth, I strongly feel that India’s response to the horrific case in Delhi has been a failure of understanding. The Government have wanted to look tough—traditionally part of the problem with the death penalty, as it makes Governments look tough—but have not brought along people who can make a real difference. I am particularly concerned that under the proposed new law, the present exemption for marital rape, whereby it is not an offence in India, is being retained. I am diverting from the real subject at issue, however, which is the use of the death penalty in India.
	As I think everybody has said, every speaker in this debate regards themselves as a friend of India. Speaking as friends of India, we want the country to be able to fulfil its enormous and growing potential in the world. One thing that makes that less possible is the existence of the death penalty. We are concerned not just about it continuing, but about the way in which its deployment helps to divide communities in India, making the country less safe and less stable.
	I am worried that the rights of religious, ethnic and caste minorities in India are not sufficiently well protected. The people who sent us the briefings have brought that issue to the debate because of their sense that the death penalty is being used to target dissidents or campaigners for those minorities. People like Professor Bhullar who have exposed some of these cases are being punished, as it were, pour encourager les autres.
	It seems to me that we have a responsibility to say to India, “We expect you, as the largest democracy in the world, to promote the standards of democracy and human rights that we expect, and to recognise that if the death penalty is used in this way, there is a risk that you will deepen the divisions between ethnic and religious communities in country. There is a risk that you will make your country less safe and less peaceful for all who live in it.”
	I believe that if India were to commit itself to abolition of the death penalty, it would build its capacity to fulfil its potential as a leader in the south for the developing world. Its economy is growing, and I think that if its reputation for respect for democracy and human rights grew at the same pace, it would play a great role in making the world safer. In respecting the rights of its
	Sikh, Christian, Dalit, Muslim and other residents, it would become stronger. It is in India’s interests, as well as the world’s interests, for the motion to succeed.

Simon Hughes: I join others in thanking the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for initiating this valuable debate. Like the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and every other Member who has spoken, I regard myself as a friend of India. I have been privileged to go there twice, and would have gone again this month had not a certain by-election and other distractions forced me to postpone my third visit.
	India is a wonderful country. One of the things that is so great about it is that it is not only the largest democracy in the world, but a democracy that has devolved power to its states. It is also very diverse, and it is a place where many faiths, and none, are equally valid, respected, enjoyed and appreciated. It is a melting pot: in my experience, it is the only place in the world, apart from Israel and Palestine in the middle east, where so many different strands of culture, history and faith come together.
	We have come here with that attitude, but some of us have come here with, also, a lifelong commitment to fighting the death penalty. I held that position and argued that case before I entered the House, and have continued to do so throughout my time here. I first joined Amnesty International when I was at university, and campaigned on cases individually. I was in Amnesty’s Southwark group before I was elected, and we made representations to Governments around the world asking them not to exercise the death penalty.
	For many of us, this is part of a traditional campaign. I pay tribute to the Members who have spoken so far, and spoken extremely well. The right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) made a very effective contribution, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). We heard an intervention from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is no longer in the Chamber, and I also greatly appreciated the contribution of my friend the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), with whom I travelled to India a couple of years ago.
	Several of my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), have signed the motion that we are discussing. For obvious reasons, some of my colleagues are not present in as large numbers as they might be, and they send their apologies. As the deputy leader of my party, I want to associate them with the motion. I should mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and for Solihull (Lorely Burt), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming)—who is present, and who intervened briefly earlier—my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), and my
	right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who has campaigned against the death penalty for many years.
	It is good that this is not the only occasion on which the issue of the death penalty has been raised this week. A number of questions about it were asked in the other place, including one from Lord Low which specifically concerned the death penalty in India and which was answered by Baroness Warsi on behalf of the Government.
	I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has already contributed to the debate. I do not want to make a long contribution myself, but I do want to make a few comments about the logic of the case that we are making to the Indian Government—while respecting the Indian Parliament and Government, and the office of President—before asking the Minister some questions and suggesting ways in which we might proceed. I realise that the Minister will not make another speech today, but I would appreciate it if he could think about those points, and reply later to me and to my colleagues.
	I understand why countries have the death penalty, I understand why countries have had the death penalty, as we did until relatively recently, and I understand the difficulty of moving from having the death penalty to not having it. Not having the death penalty looks like a sign of weakness, and may be thought to make it more likely that people will commit serious offences and “get away with them”. I understand that events such as those of the 1980s involving the golden temple, for example, have led to a culture in which it is felt that people must not be allowed to get away with activities of that kind. I understand how terrible terrorism is, in India as in this country and anywhere else, and I understand why people who are involved in and convicted of terrorism are thought to be in need of the ultimate punishment.
	However, we should also reflect on the fact that, since India gained independence in 1948, the death penalty has not deterred such people. It did not prevent any of the events of the 1980s, and it did not prevent the events referred to by the Minister when he was in India only the other day. Bomb blasts, revenge killings and assassinations have continued, as they have in other countries where the death penalty operates. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar made the telling point that Europe, where most countries do not have the death penalty, is the safest place in the world. There is no link between a lack of crime and the death penalty. Indeed, according to the most recent evidence that I have seen, in the United States of America the states with the death penalty generally do not have a lower rate of crime than those without it.

John Hemming: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key aspect of deterrence is detecting and identifying criminals, rather than the nature of the punishment?

Simon Hughes: It is—as is ensuring that justice is done and seen to be done, and that justice is done promptly.
	A real problem for our friends in India, and for the Government of India, is that justice has often ground to a halt there. That is not just my view. The other day a bench of the Supreme Court in India spoke of how slow the processes are, and in January last year a Supreme Court bench said that people’s faith in the judiciary was dwindling at an alarming rate, posing a
	grave threat to constitutional and democratic governance of the country. It acknowledged serious problems such as the large number of vacancies in trial courts, the unwillingness of lawyers to become judges, and an inability to fill the highest posts. Dealing with the backlog in the courts is one of the difficulties in India, although it is not unique to that country; we have been dealing with it in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
	There are matters that need to be addressed—matters that can be addressed—which could change the culture in India and give people more confidence. There is, for instance, the need to deal with corruption, which is sometimes a problem in our own country. We have just seen an officer of the Metropolitan police convicted of corrupt activities. Like other Members who have spoken, I am not trying to pretend that we are perfect. However, it needs to be dealt with in India and other countries where it undermines democratic values and principles and international credibility. I agree with those colleagues, including the hon. Member for Slough, who have said that if India—its Prime Minister and President—were brave enough to move to abolishing the death penalty, they could be the leaders in their part of the world. They could change the culture of other, smaller democratic countries and later, we would hope, of currently non-democratic countries such as China, so that they could all move on and we would end up not with 110 or 111 countries voting in the UN against the death penalty, but with the remaining countries understanding that there is a better way to proceed—that there is a better and fairer way to punish people.
	The ultimate argument is this: not only is it not a deterrent to have the death penalty, but, as the right hon. Member for Warley said, it is a final solution which all too often through history has proved to be wrong. If an injustice is done and the convicted person has been in prison for 20 years, that is terrible but at least they can come out and enjoy the rest of their life, but if there is an injustice and the person is executed, it is too late to undo that, of course.
	I want to make the specific case for people like Professor Bhullar and Balwant Singh Rajoana, as I did when I was last in India. I add my voice to those of others calling for the relatively new President of India to return to the moratorium his predecessor followed. I hope that can be a first, or interim, stage before abolition. I understand, too, that having people on death row is a dreadful and inhumane punishment, so a moratorium is not an adequate answer, and I hope that, collectively, we can help India understand the arguments for moving forward.
	I have a specific proposal. Later this year there is to be a Commonwealth Heads of Government conference. It is currently scheduled to be held in Colombo, although that is controversial and has been the subject of discussion. Ministers have recently been to Sri Lanka, and our country has rightly not decided what level of representation we will give because of recent human rights issues in Sri Lanka. I assume that there will be such a conference this autumn, however, either in Sri Lanka or somewhere else, and I would like our Government to see whether we can put on its agenda the remaining issues to do with the death penalty in Commonwealth countries, and see whether that could be linked with questions of justice and the speed of justice. I ask the Minister to discuss that with his colleagues, including the Foreign Secretary.
	There is a commonality of interest. I do not come to this debate because I have a huge number of Sikh constituents. In fact, I have very few constituents of Indian origin. I have no gurdwaras or temples in my constituency, but I have a large Muslim community and large Roman Catholic Irish and Latin American communities, as well as the largest African community in Britain. Although I have no constituency interest, however, I have worked a great deal with the Sikh and other minority communities in India, and the Commonwealth needs to step up to the plate and do better in making sure these issues are on the Commonwealth agenda. I would like Her Majesty’s Government to put failures of justice and the issue of the death penalty on the agenda this year.
	I also ask Ministers to reflect on how we might be more effective more immediately, in the UN Human Rights Committee meeting in Geneva which will take place in the next few weeks, and on whether we might take forward further initiatives there. Sri Lanka is on its agenda, and we might be able to ensure that these death penalty issues are addressed at it, too.
	It would be helpful to keep these issues at the top of the EU priority list, too, but not in an old empire way, but because it is good to seek to work with our friends in all countries of the world, as well as our friends in the Commonwealth. The Minister told us he raised these issues when he was in India with the Prime Minister and the UK delegation last week, but it would be helpful to know whether the Prime Minister raised them in his meeting with the Prime Minister of India or with other Ministers. If he did not, would he be willing to do so, because I am sure the increasingly good and frequent links between UK Ministers and Indian Ministers would allow the point to be put respectfully? I also ask Ministers to reflect on whether, irrespective of the Commonwealth conference, there might be an initiative from the UK and other Commonwealth countries asking the Indian Government to return to the moratorium while these issues are under consideration.
	May I end by making one final suggestion through you, Mr Deputy Speaker? The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union can be influential on occasions, and you, as well as Mr Speaker and his other deputies, can be influential in that regard. There may be a case for a parliamentary initiative. Will you, Mr Deputy Speaker, speak to Mr Speaker and your colleagues about whether we and other Commonwealth Parliaments might seek to convene a gathering or conference on this matter, perhaps to be hosted here, or in India? There is an opportunity for this Parliament and the Indian Government and Parliament and the Commonwealth to be seen to be taking the initiative. I hope this debate does not merely flag up our concerns and our desire to change things; rather, I hope it is a stepping-stone to more practical interventions, so that there can be this change in the largest democracy in the world in the very near future.

David Ward: My right hon. Friend has been more disciplined than I was in keeping to the issue of the death penalty. I am sure he would agree, however, that even if it were to be abolished in India, many other human rights abuses are taking place in that country that also need to be addressed.

Simon Hughes: That is true, and I do not want to back away from that at all. When I visited India with my friend, the hon. Member for Leeds North East, and other parliamentary colleagues, we saw the Tibetan community in exile. Before that, I had been to Punjab and, for the first time, to Indian-occupied Kashmir—or Kashmir in India—and I had been to Amritsar and the golden temple, and had the same wonderful spiritual experience others have talked about.
	There are, indeed, big human rights issues. There is a job for the International Commission of Jurists, Justice and many of us to do to try to make sure democratic Governments uphold the standards we sign up to and that they sign up to documents such as the Rome statute and the UN convention against torture, which are referred to in the motion. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, therefore.
	There is work to be done, and this is a very serious matter. Some colleagues may wonder why some of us are here in the Chamber today, rather than in Eastleigh. I hope people understand that although by-elections are, of course, important, trying to change the way one of our best friends deals with justice is at least as important. When this debate ends, I will go and do my duty in Eastleigh.

Seema Malhotra: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this important debate, and wish to place on record my thanks to, and pride in, the Kesri Lehar campaign, which is based in my constituency. I congratulate it on its tireless work and grass-roots campaign for human rights for all minorities in India. I also wish to echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who stated that this debate is held in the context of our friendship with India and the great value we place on that relationship. This is a matter for the Indian population and the Indian Government, but it is also a matter on which we can express our views and those of our constituents.
	We participate in many debates in this House, but this one is literally about life and death. I have had a long-standing personal opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances and I am proud to live in a country where it has been abolished. This is a matter of humanity and, as someone once said, it is not for the state to kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong.
	The purpose of this debate is to encourage India to take action to stop the human rights abuses facing all minorities and any of its citizens, be they Sikh, Dalits or from other communities, which are an issue of great concern to so many in the Indian diaspora in Britain and across the world. Our pride in India as a nation also encourages us to raise these concerns.
	The motion requests that India sign and ratify the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court and the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and address the human rights of political prisoners, an issue raised by Amnesty International. Two specific cases have rightly been mentioned: that of Professor Bhullar, about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds
	North East (Fabian Hamilton) spoke so eloquently and whose health is now a matter of great concern; and that of Balwant Singh Rajoana, about whom I shall speak further.
	Kesri Lehar, as has been mentioned, means the wave of justice. I have supported the Kesri Lehar campaign since it originated a year ago, when there was a significant increase in concern in the Sikh community, the Punjab and across the world when it was believed that Balwant Singh Rajoana might be executed. Hundreds in my constituency approached me in the gurdwara, on the streets, through my mailbox and in petitions. It was incredibly moving to see a community mobilised in such a way on a cause that was a great matter of justice and to see that young and old men and women have been engaged in the campaign. Many are in Parliament today to watch the debate and many others will be watching it on channels such as Sangat TV, which has also been a great supporter of the campaign.
	At that time, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary and the Indian Government to raise the concerns of many in my constituency, and to call for a stay of execution. I also raised the specific concern that the execution of Balwant Singh Rajoana could and would cause social unrest and roll back progress in the Punjab.
	This is not just a theoretical question for members of the Indian diaspora; it goes closer to home. In previous periods of unrest in the Punjab, my late uncle was nearly killed, and it was only because he managed to play dead that he escaped with his life. Punjab is the home of the Sikh religion, and the Golden Temple in Amritsar, which I have also visited, is a place of pilgrimage for many and a place of magnificence and inspiration for all, whatever their faith. The stay of execution in the Rajoana case was welcome, but the campaign to abolish the death penalty and establish better human rights in India and across the world continues. Along with my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East and others, I was honoured before Christmas to help present at No. 10 Downing street the petition, signed by more than 100,000 people, that called for the issue to be debated.
	The execution of Balwant Singh and others would not end terrorism or causes of concern, and would damage the image of India, which has been making great progress towards being rightly considered a modern, progressive state with a major role and great influence in the world. We know that the partnership between India and Britain is one of which we can all be proud. Two years ago, I had a life-changing experience as a participant on the Dishaa programme, which was set up by both Governments to support the next generation of leaders in Britain and India and to ensure that our future together remains strong.
	India is a nation with more than 1,500 languages and dialects and is a showcase to the world in business, culture, arts and crafts. The Sikh community in India and around the world leads in business and agriculture, where it blazes a trail. The work of the Pingalwara charity in the Punjab shows the deepest compassion for those in the community with the least and those with the greatest disabilities. It is also leading the thinking about how to deal with environmental issues so that we can have a clean environment and tackle the vital questions
	of quality of life and the supply of water and good food for so many. The Sikh religion has at its heart the principles and values of equality that many of us hold so dear. It would be a significant step for India, as the world’s largest democracy, if it not only reinstated the moratorium but took steps to abolish the death penalty altogether. India is a world economic power that is sure to play an increasing role in world affairs over the coming decades, and such a move would considerably enhance its authority and encourage other countries to end the death penalty.
	If India is to fulfil its great potential, we know that challenges lie ahead as we work together to tackle these wider human rights atrocities and help build a reformed justice system that has the confidence of all. There have been wider concerns about justice for Sikhs since 1984. More recently, the brutal and tragic rape and murder of a 23-year-old young woman on a bus in India at Christmas showed that we must tackle violence against women in India in a far greater way than before. A vigil in support of her and her family was held at a temple in my constituency and concerns were raised about the behaviour of the police, the scrutiny and transparency of the case, and police accountability. Concerns about the police in human rights cases demonstrate the need for reform in the police and justice system. In that regard, we can share many of our experiences in the UK to help India on its path to an improved justice system that has the confidence of all.
	On V-day two weeks ago, men and women in India also stood up together as part of One Billion Rising, the global campaign to end violence against women and girls in which many in this House and across the country also took a stand. Days such as V-day must not be a one-day wonder for which we prepare for six months and then move on. The message must be kept alive and channelled into all aspects of domestic and international diplomacy throughout the year. Today’s debate about standing up for human rights in India is another circumstance in which we can stand up for the rights of women and children and ensure that their voice is heard.
	Another great concern is the fact that in the world’s greatest democracy we have recently seen innocent people suffering and being killed in the crossfire when peacefully protesting for improved human rights. Last year, a horrific case that touched us all deeply was the death of Jaspal Singh. Jaspal was an 18-year-old Sikh college student peacefully protesting against capital punishment last March who was killed when police opened fire on a crowd of just a few hundred to make them disperse. There are concerns about the level of inquiry into how and why that tragedy happened and why others were injured. There are different ways of keeping the peace in communities and of policing, and I hope there will also be ongoing conversation between India and other nations about how areas of perceived public disturbance or concerns can be better policed.
	This has been an important debate, and a sad one, because of the cases and human life issues that have been raised. I hope that the UK and other Governments can now lead a renewed effort to persuade the Indian Government and other nations to renounce capital punishment and address the outstanding concerns about human rights abuse. Part of that is having a reformed justice system that has the confidence of all. We can work with our friends in the Indian Government towards this.
	I pay tribute again to the work of the Kesri Lehar campaign. As politicians, one of the most noble contributions we can make to human progress is to do what we can to see a safer world for future generations, effective justice systems in every nation, a holding to the standards of international human rights and, I hope in my lifetime, a global end to the death penalty.

Virendra Sharma: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute. I congratulate the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this debate about this important issue of human rights and dignity. The Kesri Lehar petition has raised an essential debate about the use and abolition of the death penalty all over the world, but particularly in India, for many reasons. I have received an abundance of letters and correspondence from my constituents, irrespective of their faith and community, a majority of whom still have strong links with India and are dismayed by its continued use of this outdated, cruel and inhumane method of punishment. Just for clarification, I have the largest Sikh electorate—21.6%—in my constituency, so I have a moral authority to speak on their behalf on this matter.
	The universal declaration of human rights, adopted by India, recognises the right to live and the right to be free from subjection to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. By keeping the death penalty, India goes against the fundamental rights that it has agreed to. It is one of only 58 countries to retain the death penalty, and one of only 20 to have applied the death penalty in practice in recent years. It cannot be acceptable for a democracy such as India to keep practising this unfair punishment.

Fabian Hamilton: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the representative of the largest number of Sikh residents anywhere in the United Kingdom. His constituency is well known for that. Does he agree that a petition such as the one that has been presented to me and my colleagues will add to the pressure on the Government of India, because it is signed not only by Sikh community members but by non-Sikhs? Does he agree that organisations such as the Sikh Federation (UK) can persuade people to coalesce around this cause and have an extremely loud voice in the UK for the abolition of the death penalty in India?

Virendra Sharma: I fully agree with what my hon. Friend has said.
	We cannot always assume that the judicial system is faultless. Therefore, using death, an irrevocable act, as a punishment for a crime, puts the system at risk of punishing the innocent irreversibly. There have been examples in the past of wrongful executions. It was the case of Timothy John Evans that, among others, contributed to the abolition of the death penalty in this country, after a long campaign by Labour MP Sydney Silverman. Evans was falsely convicted of murdering his wife and infant daughter, sentenced to capital punishment and hanged in 1950. It was three years later that the police discovered multiple bodies in the flat of downstairs neighbour and serial killer, John Christie, and realised their mistake. Can it really be just to execute a person who, while at the time of conviction is believed guilty, might well be innocent?
	It is the mark of a modern civilised society that it does not tolerate torture and admits that a death sentence is not an appropriate way to respond to criminality. As the world’s largest democracy, India should adhere to these precepts. Every human being has an inalienable right to live; sentencing a person to death goes against that principle. The state and the judicial system cannot deprive an individual of the value of their life. Taking the life of an individual is also hugely inconsistent with the values that Indian culture prides itself and is based on—fairness and equality.
	Archbishop Desmond Tutu is believed to have said, “To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, it is not justice.” I agree: justice cannot be provided with a reciprocal sentence. The justice system cannot proclaim, on the one hand, to condemn the act of killing and, on the other, exact punishment with death. This also establishes an inappropriate link between the state and violence, thus brutalising society and, to a degree, legitimising state violence. It is also abhorrent to note that there are still countries that hand capital sentences to individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs. We should not tolerate the existence of the death penalty to punish those with different spiritual values or beliefs.
	I would finally like to point out that, while there has been much justified consternation and outcry over the recent executions in India itself, unfortunately a growing number of voices in India have called for those men responsible for the brutal attack and rape of the young Damini to be hanged. I have spoken many times in this Chamber about my sadness and dismay at her tragic death, and I am heartened to hear calls for justice on her behalf. However, the death penalty is in no case justice: it is simply revenge. What India needs now is to reform the law and justice system to address the many underlying issues which perpetuate this endemic cycle of violence against women and girls, not to blindly apply capital punishment to the perpetrators.
	As the Kesri Lehar petition states, I encourage the Indian Government to
	“sign and ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the UN Charter against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”.
	As the world’s largest democracy and a multicultural, multi-religious and secular country, India should be a leader in the defence of human rights and fundamental rights, and abolish the death penalty, which taints its long history of peace-making.

John McDonnell: I am grateful to the hon. Members who have made such valid and thoughtful contributions today. I know that many have been dragged down to Eastleigh for the by-election to pester constituents to no effect whatever, but I am grateful to those who have come along today, because it has demonstrated that this House speaks with one voice on this matter, and that voice is the plea to India to end the current threat of the implementation of the death penalty and move towards its abolition.
	The tone was struck by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and reinforced by the hon. Members for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller), my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart),
	the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). We are speaking as friends of India. We recognise and respect the sovereignty of India as an independent state, but our historic links give us the opportunity to speak as friends.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) explained the background and the historical human rights abuses that unfortunately have still not been addressed, and described how they are being compounded by the threat of the death penalty that now hangs over Balwant Singh Rajoana and Professor Bhullar. The Minister has explained the history of representations that we are pleased that the Government have made and continue to make. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley and I have offered other practical ideas and opportunities for further interventions to try to move this issue along to fruition.
	We thank the Kesri Lehar campaigners who brought this issue to us and made this debate fundamentally important in the campaign to save the lives of the two individuals we have referred to, but also to end the death penalty once and for ever.
	The last word in this debate should be from the family of one of the men. During the debate, a letter came in from relatives of Professor Bhullar. They say that they can only pray that people are listening and that everyone will do everything they can to stop this inhuman execution of an innocent person and a terrible miscarriage of justice. They beg the House today to please help Professor Bhullar to be saved from the death penalty and to help them immediately. That message goes out not only from that family, but from all of us. We want to ensure that no one else suffers the death penalty in India. We want a peaceful and harmonious society to be constructed, and such a society cannot be constructed on the basis of the death penalty.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the national petition launched by the Kesri Lehar campaign urging the UK Government to press the Indian government to sign and ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which encompasses the death penalty, with the result that India would abolish the death penalty and lift this threat from Balwant Singh Rajoana and others.

Phil Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you advise us whether you have received a request from the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement to the House to explain his outrageous comment about schools in east Durham made in a speech last night, that:
	“when you go into those schools you can smell the sense of defeatism”?
	That is a slur on the hard-working teachers, students and parents of the area. Why is he talking down our schools and young people? He should come to the House and apologise to the people of east Durham.

Lindsay Hoyle: I can assure you that the Chair has not been notified by the Secretary of State that he is about to make a statement, but that is on the record and I am sure that it will have been noted.

Kurdish Genocide

Nadhim Zahawi: I beg to move,
	That this House formally recognises the genocide against the people of Iraqi Kurdistan; encourages governments, the EU and UN to do likewise; believes that this will enable Kurdish people, many in the UK, to achieve justice for their considerable loss; and further believes that it would enable the UK, the home of democracy and freedom, to send out a message of support for international conventions and human rights, which is made even more pressing by the slaughter in Syria and the possible use of chemical arsenals.
	You will have noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I do not stand in my usual place in the Chamber. I deliberately chose to sit next to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) today, because in this Parliament I think no one has done more than he for the cause of the Kurdish people and recognition of the genocide—indeed, he chairs the Kurdish Genocide Task Force.
	As the horrors of the holocaust pass beyond living memory, there is a danger that we drop our guard—that we believe such terrible events are safely sealed in the history books and that they could never happen again—but the truth is they already have happened again. Genocide did not end with the fall of the Third Reich in 1945. In the Srebrenica genocide in 1995, 8,000 Bosnians were murdered en masse; in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, more than 500,000 people were killed in just 100 days; and between 1960 and 1991, during the campaign of persecution unleashed by Saddam Hussein against his own people, singling out the Kurdish community, more than 1 million people “disappeared”, with most presumed dead, murdered by Government forces. Yet only the first two have been recognised officially as genocide. No international criminal tribunal has been convened to investigate the extermination of the Kurdish people, nor has there been an international campaign to bring those responsible for those atrocities to justice, and the British government have not formally stated that the actions of Saddam and his lieutenants constituted genocide. That must be put right.
	To many people, the plight of the Kurds in Iraq remains unknown. The demonisation, the internment camps, the gassings, the mass graves—those are images that take us to the darkest depths of the 1940s, not the 1980s, yet Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime carried out these actions. The Iraqi Kurds endured a systematic military programme of discrimination, demonisation, removal and death. So-called “men of battle age”—a definition that included tall, strong boys as young as 12—were rounded up, and thousands of women and children vanished. Strong evidence shows many were taken to internment camps, where they were executed or died from malnutrition and torture. When coalition forces entered Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction, they found instead mass graves and the thousands of bodies that they were concealing—men, women, and children, all killed for nothing other than their ethnicity, their bodies hidden from the eyes of the world.
	This year is the 25th anniversary of the final act in that persecution: the Anfal campaign—literally translated, it means “the spoils of war”. That last and best known phase took place in 1988, when more than 182,000 Kurds are believed to have died—182,000 men, women and
	children systematically wiped out. In all, more than 2,000 Kurdish villages and towns were destroyed, including the town of Qla Dizeh, which along with its 70,000 inhabitants was literally wiped off the map. Let me put that in context: that is enough people to fill Wembley Stadium twice over, or, if compared with the horrors of the September 11 attacks against the USA, 60 times the 3,000 innocents killed on that terrible day. Yet even that was not the worst of it.
	On 16 March 1988, Iraqi planes bombed the town of Halabja with mustard gas and, some suspect, other nerve agents such as sarin and VX. Five thousand civilians died in incredible agony that day, and estimates suggest a further 7,000 were injured or suffered long-term illness. For years afterwards, many babies were born with deformities, and even today, if you visit Halabja as I have done, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will see mass grave sites, and the basements of bombed buildings remain contaminated.
	For me the events hold a personal significance. I am proud to be the first British MP of Kurdish descent. It was the persecution of the Kurdish people that brought my family to the safe haven of Great Britain. I remember, as an eight-year-old boy, standing with my mother in Baghdad international airport watching my father attempt to flee the country, boarding a plane to the safe haven of Britain. The night before, he had been tipped off that the regime was planning to come for him. As the plane taxied towards the runway, we watched in horror as an army vehicle stopped the plane and soldiers boarded it. It was only later that we discovered that they had taken the man sat right next to my father. That was the life of a Kurdish family in Iraq—waiting for the knock on the door in the middle of the night, knowing that they could be coming for you, living in fear.
	In 1988, as news of Halabja reached the Kurdish community overseas, we all waited for the media to take notice. In a box in my attic, I have some of the first photographs to get out of the region. As hon. Members can imagine, they are horrifying. Yet Saddam's spin machine had gone into overdrive—no gas had been used, they said—and the first western journalists did not visit the area until more than a week later. What confronted them was truly terrible. Writing in The Guardian, David Hirst described the scene:
	"The skin of the bodies is strangely discoloured, with their eyes open and staring, where they have not disappeared into their sockets, a greyish slime oozing from their mouths and their fingers still grotesquely twisted. Death seemingly caught them almost unawares in the midst of their household chores. They had just the strength, some of them, to make it to the doorways of their homes, only to collapse there or a few feet beyond. Here a mother seems to clasp her children in a last embrace, there an old man shields an infant from he cannot have known what."
	Even after that there was still scepticism from many, yet that was just the culmination of a decade-long campaign against the Kurdish people, the final stage of the regime's attempts to wipe out the Kurdish people in Iraq. Saddam had unleashed all the resources of a modem, industrialised state on the Kurdish population of his own country. His forces used chemical weapons, concentration camps and aerial bombardment—all methods that were last seen during the second world war. If it was not genocide, one has to ask what would be?
	The crime of genocide was brought into law to prosecute those put on trial at Nuremberg. The word comes from the Greek for race and the Latin for killing. The literal
	meaning is clear, but legally it requires the aggressor to have pre-planned the destruction of a national group. In its investigation, Human Rights Watch was clear that that was the case:
	“This crime far transcended legitimate counterinsurgency and includes the murder and disappearance of tens of thousands of non-combatants due to their ethnic-national identity.”
	The fact that some of the atrocities took place during the Iran-Iraq war or during a time of uprising have led some to argue that they were war crimes or crimes against humanity, but I disagree. There is no doubt that atrocities were committed in the conflict, but what occurred in Kurdistan—the mass killing of civilians, including women and children—was not a conflict; one side could not and did not fight back. And it was not random violence; it was the planned destruction of the Kurdish population.
	Prior to requesting this debate, I launched an e-petition calling on the Government to recognise formally the genocide against the people of Iraqi Kurdistan, and as of this morning it had attracted nearly 28,000 signatures. At 10,000 signatures, it received a response from the Government:
	“It remains the Government’s view that it is not for governments to decide whether a genocide has been committed in this case, as this is a complex legal question. Where an international judicial body finds a crime to have been a genocide, however, this will often play an important part in whether we will recognise one as such.”
	However, without international pressure it is unlikely that an international judicial body would begin a prosecution in order to provide that “important part” that the Government require.
	There is also the fact that many of those responsible, including Saddam himself, were tried and executed for other crimes before an international court could intervene on the question of genocide. However, in March 2010 the Iraqi Supreme Court ruled that the 1988 operations were genocide, four years after Saddam was executed for crimes against humanity. There is no doubt now that he should also have stood trial for genocide.

Mike Gapes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and apologise for being a couple of minutes late for the start of his speech, which caught me out. I think that he is making a very strong case. Other Parliaments, such as Norway’s, have already said that in their opinion there was genocide, so the British Government need to reconsider their position.

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right, and I am coming to that point in my speech.
	The Iraqi Supreme Court has ruled that the 1988 operations were genocide. Earlier this year the Norwegian Government, as we have just heard, recognised the Anfal campaign as genocide, stating that the judgment in Iraq, in accordance with international law, justified that decision. Sweden followed, with the Swedish Parliament stating that, based on research, statements from organisations and the 2010 judgment in Iraq, it was legally able to make that declaration. In the Netherlands, we have even seen a Dutch citizen successfully prosecuted for his part in the genocide: Frans van Anraat was tried
	at The Hague and charged, among other things, with selling chemicals knowing that they were to be used for genocidal purposes. Such a charge required the court to decide whether the Anfal campaign was indeed genocide. Unsurprisingly, it agreed that it was. Therefore, there exists a judicial decision in Iraq, a decision at The Hague and the decisions of other nations to support a declaration that the Kurds were subjected to genocide. The United Kingdom can act to make it clear to the world that this Government recognise the genocide committed against the Kurdish people.
	Beyond the legal arguments there is another important dimension. The United Kingdom carries enormous moral weight around the world. I am proud that Britain is at the forefront of the international community when it comes to protecting human rights and standing up to regimes that threaten their people and their neighbours. That is why we must be at the forefront of this argument.

David Lammy: I stand shoulder to shoulder with the hon. Gentleman in his desire to see this recognised as genocide. In relation to the point he has just made, does he not also think that that would bolster the position of the 38 million Kurdish people living in Syria, Iran, Iraq and Turkey today? Does he also believe that, given the tremendous concern about the position of Kurdish people in Turkey at the moment, it is important that we recognise those past sins?

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is quite right. I do not think that the Kurdish people can get closure on the horrific crimes that were committed against them in Iraq, but if Parliament today recognises that what took place was genocide, they will be one step closer. We will also send a clear message to all those countries that might at some point be tempted to attack their own people because of their ethnicity to think twice. I thank him for being here and for supporting the motion.

Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on his speech, which will do a great deal to create greater understanding of the plight of Kurdish people in all countries. Will he reflect for a moment on the fact that, although what happened in 1988 was genocide and was appalling, this country, to its shame, continued to sell arms to Iraq, and indeed took part in the Baghdad arms fair less than a year later, and that the weaponry it continued to supply might well have been used in the oppression of the Kurdish people?

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I said in my opening remarks, Saddam Hussein’s spin machine and many instruments of power were available to him, including a number of people who lobbied this Parliament and the Government very hard at the time to continue to do business with him. At this point, I must recognise John Major’s contribution to safeguarding the Kurds in ’91 when Saddam used his helicopter gunships to attack the Kurdish people after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. This country decided to put in place a no-fly zone to protect the Kurdish people and the Shi’a people in the south of Iraq, who were coming under similar attack.

Jim Cunningham: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he see what he is asking for today as a step towards justice for the Kurdish people across various countries in the middle east, such as Turkey, which has been mentioned? As I see it, he has done the Kurdish people quite a service today if this can start the ball rolling for justice for them across the region, particularly in Turkey.

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If we recognise what took place in Iraq as genocide against the Kurdish people, we will send a clear message to all leaders in the region that they should think twice before deciding to attack their own people, as we are seeing currently in Syria. Indeed, today a conference is being held in Rome, attended by the Foreign Secretary, to try to see what more we can do to safeguard the welfare of the Syrian people.
	I am truly proud that Britain is at the forefront of the international community’s efforts to protect human rights. Recognising the Kurdish persecution as genocide will send a strong message to totalitarian regimes around the world that might consider committing such acts. After all, history has shown that when a dictator thinks they will get away with it, they will commit atrocities against their own people. We need only turn our gaze to Syria to remind ourselves of that.
	It is only by raising international awareness of these crimes that we will educate people against the intolerance and hatred that led to these heinous acts. It is only by proving that the perpetrators of these crimes can and will be brought to justice that we will make the dictators of this world think before they act. It is by recognising the Kurdish genocide that we can ensure that these aims are achieved and that the British nation can cement its position as a protector of liberty and human rights. I commend the motion to the House.

Meg Munn: I refer to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	It is an honour to speak in this important debate. Over the past five years I have been involved with the all-party group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq, which I am now proud to co-chair with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who eloquently set out the reason for this debate. The all-party group is very active and has an excellent website with a range of views and news. Members can look at the issues relating to Kurdistan and to this debate on that website at www.appgkurdistan.org.uk.
	Genocide, as my hon. Friend said, is the methodical killing of all the people from a particular national, ethnic or religious group. Today’s debate is an important milestone towards persuading this House, the wider public and the international community to recognise the attempted genocide of the Kurdish people in Iraq by Saddam Hussein. As my hon. Friend said, an estimated 1 million Iraqis have disappeared since the 1960s, all presumed murdered by the regime. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Anfal genocide operation against the Kurds, including the dreadful chemical attack on Halabja, as well as the 30th anniversary of the killing of 8,000 male members of the Barzani clan.
	The scale of these atrocities is clear and not seriously challenged, but few outside the Kurdistan region understand what was involved in the mass slaughter, and fewer still understand the organisation and methods used in what has been described as “Saddam’s killing machine”. It has been referred to as a prison above ground and a mass grave beneath. The targeting of the Kurdish people living in northern Iraq was designed to remove any possibility of opposition to the vile regime. Last night, I watched again two DVDs that have been produced by the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights about the terrible crimes committed by Saddam Hussein’s regime: “Execution of People” and “Dust Talks”. They include pictures of some of the atrocities filmed by the regime, including shootings, beatings and the severing of ears of young men who had deserted the army. They show the devastation of the way of life of the Marsh Arabs by the deliberate draining of the marshes, and of course the chemical attacks at Halabja and elsewhere.
	Today we have only words to try to describe what happened, and I fear that they will fall short of portraying the full horror. These monstrous events have a contemporary relevance. Many families still do not know if a father, brother or sister is dead or not, and do not know where their body may be buried, perhaps in some undiscovered mass grave. Not knowing about the fate of a member of the family weighs heavily. The impact of the killing continues and will continue for many, many years to come.
	It is important to remember just how closed and controlled a society Iraq was. There were few opportunities for contact with the outside world. After the no-fly zone was imposed over Kurdistan in 1991, people at last had the opportunity to begin to develop their own democracy and to make their own decisions, but sustained contact with the outside world really began only after the 2003 invasion. Only then did we slowly begin to understand the true scale of the horror. According to the International Commission on Missing Persons in 2006, there were 270 mass graves, each estimated to contain between 10 and 10,000 bodies. Since then, many, many more mass graves have been uncovered.
	Of course, it was not just the Kurds who suffered under Saddam Hussein. The impact of 35 years of dictatorship is still very evident in all sections of the Iraqi population. I have visited Iraq a number of times and have been privileged to meet the politicians who are building their democracy. Some have shared with me their experiences of that dark time: family members killed, tortured or simply missing. The number of widows in the country is simply huge. In Kurdistan today, many children are affected with cancers caused by the chemical weapons. Others live with the effects of barbaric torture.
	Ten years after the fall of the dictator, the health services are far from adequate to meet the needs of the population, but they are improving. In the UK, we have benefited from the Iraqi doctors who came here to work during the time of exile, and it is encouraging to see that many have returned and are now working to improve health services in their home country. Indeed, it was an Iraqi doctor in Sheffield who began the process which has led to significant partnerships between Sheffield Hallam university and the Iraqi Ministry of Health and Iraqi universities to provide much-needed skills for the health service. A strong partnership has also developed with the Kurdistan regional government.

David Anderson: Great support has also been given by members of the Newcastle-Gateshead medical volunteers, led by Deiary Kader, who, as well as the people from Sheffield, have been going over to Kurdistan to treat people for a number of years. Next month, they will go there for the eighth time. Over those years, thousands and thousands of people have benefited from the relationship that we have developed between our two countries.

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that partnership to the attention of the House. It is true that in the UK there are very many doctors of Iraqi and Iraqi-Kurdish origin. While they have continued to serve and provide support for our community, they are also doing such things as my hon. Friend described and doing what they can at a time when the health services in Iraq still need a great deal of investment to develop to serve an ordinary population, let alone one that has suffered the kind of trauma, torture and chemical attacks that have been suffered in Iraq, particularly in Kurdistan.
	Alongside the physical impact of repression on the population, we must not underestimate the psychological effects: living with the grief of lost family members, remembering the terror of attacks and, above all, the constant fear. As a woman says in one of the DVDs I mentioned, Iraqi people had no dignity because they had to sell out their consciences to Saddam Hussein to stay alive.
	Thirty-five years of dictatorship are not easily forgotten, but there have been positive moments since the 2003 invasion. We remember the TV pictures of the purple-stained fingers shown with pride when the Iraqi people were able to exercise the right to vote—something that we take for granted. They were excited about being able to take part in the first democratic elections. But of course voting is only the first act; building the institutions and democratic habits are much more difficult—all the more so when people have not been allowed to make their own decisions, and acting on their own initiative was a risky thing to do.
	My involvement with the Kurdistan regional and Iraqi national parliaments has shown me just how difficult this task is, but it is a task to which many brave Iraqis are committed. To take on these tasks and build a new society is complex and demanding; it will take time, dedication and determination. We should continue to support them in this. An important way to do that is formally to recognise what happened to them. Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner argues that
	“human rights should mean that people are protected within their own countries”.
	When these rights are violated, it is the duty of the international community to honour victims and to ensure that history cannot repeat itself. If democratic Governments cannot be clear about genocide and say that such crimes must be stamped out, then who will?

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for the interesting points she is making. Does she accept that there is systematic discrimination against Kurdish people, culture and language in all the neighbouring countries—it is a product of the break-up of the Ottoman empire at the end of the first world war—and that those countries
	have to reckon with a multicultural, multilingual and multi-ethnic society if there is to be long-term peace in the region?

Meg Munn: Building the kind of society described by my hon. Friend, which recognises people’s rights to their own language and culture and to celebrate their background, is enormously important and very much part of this process. Although building democracy in Iraq and working with Iraqi parliamentarians is difficult, it is encouraging to see Iraqis across all political groups and backgrounds working together. The services and reconstruction committee of the Iraqi Parliament will visit us next week. It is chaired by a Kurdish-Yezidi woman and is comprised of people from different backgrounds who are working together to try to build things for the Iraqi people. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend spoke eloquently of the position in France and that of the French Foreign Minister. Does she recall that just a few weeks ago three Kurdish women were shot dead in Paris? That conveys the continued concern that we should all have about Kurdish people as they go about their business in Europe. It also illustrates not only why we must recognise genocide, as has been said, but that these are a people who continue to be routinely oppressed.

Meg Munn: My right hon. Friend is right. I have particular concerns about the position of Kurdish people and, indeed, others. More than 70,000 have died in Syria and there is an ever-present fear of chemical weapons being used by that regime, which is a frightening reminder of the Halabja gas attack. As has been said, some of the effects of the 16 March 1988 attack on Halabja are still with us, including disease, birth defects and other health complications. Can we easily accept the possibility that more victims of these weapons could arise today in Iraq’s neighbouring country?
	We know of the genocide perpetrated against the Jews by the Nazis during the second world war and the excellent work undertaken by organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust to educate new generations about the horror. Every year we have Holocaust memorial day to honour the dead and ensure that they are not forgotten. The story of the Kurdish genocide has yet to be fully told and is not yet fully understood, but the Kurdish people should not have to wait any longer for justice from the international community. Iraq has officially recognised the killings as genocide and the rest of the world must do the same.

Robert Halfon: It is an honour to sit next to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), whom I congratulate on securing this debate and on everything he has done on the all-party group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq, on which I have been very proud to work with him.
	During my last visit to Kurdistan, I remember being in a restaurant one evening where, by chance, I sat next to one of the senior members of the Iraqi war graves commission. She told me something incredibly telling, which sums up why I am here this afternoon: “There is another Iraq buried under Iraq.” We had a huge amount
	of food in front of us, as is the Kurdish way, but after she said that I did not feel like eating again that evening. It summed up the mass murder and terrible crimes of Saddam Hussein. Later, along with my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) and others, I went to see some of the graves. The experience left a marked impression on me and it summed up why we have to recognise Saddam Hussein’s genocide of the Kurds as exactly that.
	We know that the actions of the Iraqi regime from the 1960s to 2003 were a sustained campaign of genocide against the Kurdish people. We must not make the mistake of thinking that everything started with the Anfal in 1988. Had it not been for “muscular enlightenment” and the military interventions of John Major and, later, Tony Blair, the final solution for the extermination of the Kurds would have been successful. Recognition of the genocide and of the Kurds is important, not just because it is morally right, but because it is a warning to tyrants around the world and helps the survivors to fight for justice in the international criminal courts.
	Raphael Lemkin, the Polish lawyer who coined the word “genocide,” defined it in 1944 as
	“a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.”
	That is a perfect description of the campaign of persecution and murder that Saddam Hussein and his predecessors led against the Kurdish people. The Kurds were repeatedly attacked by the Iraqi military from 1960 to 1970. In March 1970, Iraq publicly announced a peace plan to the world for Kurdish autonomy, but privately it started an aggressive Arabisation programme in the oil-rich regions of Kurdistan, forcibly removing people and seizing their property. In 1974, Iraq began a new bombardment against the Kurds. In March 1975, Iraq and Iran signed the Algiers accord, cutting humanitarian supplies to Kurdistan. Over the next three years, 200,000 Kurds were forcibly deported to other parts of Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the regime implemented anti-Kurdish policies—pogroms, in essence—and a civil war broke out.
	Iraq was condemned, but it was never seriously punished. The result was that the genocide accelerated: first, the Kurds were demonised, then they were marginalised, then persecuted, and finally they were massacred—all the stages of genocide. Between 1986 and 1989, the Anfal campaign led to the destruction of more than 2,000 villages and towns, and the murder of more than 180,000 Kurdish civilians. There was cold-blooded use of ground offences, internment without trial, disappearances, aerial bombing, torture and rape as a weapon of war, destruction of whole villages and towns, mass deportation, firing squads and chemical attacks, including, as so movingly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, the inhuman attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988 that killed 5,000 people almost instantly. We should not forget that just before Saddam Hussein dropped the mustard gas, bombs were dropped to blow up the house windows so that none of the Kurds could escape inside the buildings and retreat from the mustard gas.
	After the collapse of the Kurdish uprising in March 1991, 1.5 million Kurds became refugees. It was only then, after decades of escalating violence and genocide, that in April 1991 the United Nations Security Council
	passed resolution 688, demanding peace in Kurdistan and access for humanitarian agencies. Disgracefully, this was the first international resolution to mention the Kurdish people by name.
	In 2004, Human Rights Watch said that
	“in the last twenty-five years of Ba‘th Party rule the Iraqi government murdered or ‘disappeared’ some quarter of a million Iraqis, if not more.”
	As with every other genocide, the methods of killing became ever more sophisticated—think shooting in the woods by the Nazis and then the concentration camps. My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock will remember going to a prison called the “red house”, which was, in essence, a mini concentration camp that had what were called “party rooms”, where women were raped and their babies and foetuses literally thrown into ovens outside. I had never seen anything like that in my life and I never want to see it again. In fact, on my second visit, I stayed outside because I did not want to see what I had seen before.
	Saddam and the Ba’athists were determined to vacuum the Kurds from Iraq, partly because of Arab nationalism and partly through a desire to gain full control of the Kurdish lands and oil. If one defines genocide as scientifically planned mass murder, the Kurds suffered genocide. I know that there is always a debate about definitions, but the Anfal campaign was the murder of 182,000 people and the displacement of 1.5 million people just because they were Kurdish.
	How is that any different from the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslims at Srebrenica, which has been ruled to be a genocide by the International Criminal Court? How is it different from Rwanda, where 800,000 Tutsis died in 1994, which the UN rightly recognises as a genocide? How is it different from Darfur, for which the ICC issued an arrest warrant in 2010 for the President of Sudan on genocide charges, after 300,000 people were murdered and millions displaced? The UN recognises formally that Yugoslavia and Rwanda have had genocides. Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the massacres in Darfur were a genocide. Since that time, however, no other permanent member of the UN Security Council has followed suit.
	I accept that the Minister will feel hemmed in by the definitions. However, to the man on the street, how are the scientific murders of Darfur, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia any different from what happened in Kurdistan? In 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. It legally defined the crime of genocide as:
	“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
	(a) Killing members of the group;
	(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
	(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
	(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
	(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
	That definition is plain and clear. It describes exactly what has happened to the Kurds in Iraq over the past 50 years. It is worth remembering, as my hon. Friend
	the Member for Stratford-on-Avon noted, that in December 2005, a court in The Hague ruled that the Kurdish people had faced genocide in the 1980s.
	What stopped the genocide was NATO intervention or what I have termed “muscular enlightenment”. In April 1991, John Major and his western allies established proper safe havens inside Iraqi borders and a no-fly zone. It is good to see Lord Archer in this place given that he was so instrumental in making that happen. Kurdish guerrillas recaptured Irbil and founded the Kurdistan regional government, which was ultimately recognised by the new Iraqi constitution in 2005. By the beginning of 2006, the two Kurdish administrations of Irbil and Sulaymaniyah were unified.
	Kurdistan is now one of the most moderate and democratic regions of the middle east. It disproves the argument that the middle east is not ready for democracy. People always say that the middle east is just not ready yet and that it will take hundreds of years to build democracy there, but despite what they have suffered, the people of Kurdistan have built a democracy. It is not perfect, but it is a good democracy with the rule of law, property rights, equality towards women, religious tolerance and elections—all the requirements that we understand to be the values of freedom. It is no accident that Christians across the rest of Iraq go to Kurdistan when they are being persecuted. They know that they will be treated fairly and equally there, as is right.
	We must finally recognise Saddam Hussein’s actions for what they were. Recognition is morally right. It acts as a warning to other dictators around the world and will help Kurds to fight for justice in the International Criminal Court. Unlike the case of Nazi Germany, where many of those who were responsible for the holocaust were tried, little has been done to bring justice to those who caused the Kurdish genocide. It is a frightening thought, but it is said that some of the organisers of the Anfal and the pilots who dropped the chemical weapons remain at large and may even be in Europe. Others are in positions of responsibility in Iraq’s military and Government. To be fair, Iraq has now officially recognised the genocide. It is the duty of the rest of the world to do the same to ensure that all the perpetrators are brought to the ICC and to help with education and remembrance so that what happened is never forgotten by future generations.
	We can argue about dodgy dossiers and disagree about UN resolutions. I am sure that we will be debating whether the Iraq war was justified until the next millennium. However, one matter that is indisputable is that the removal of Saddam Hussein not only saved the Kurdish nation from being destroyed by genocide, but brought about an independent, progressive and free nation in the shape of Kurdistan.
	I am a Jewish MP and have very few Kurdish constituents. Because I am Jewish, because I am steeped in learning about the holocaust and because some of my family were in Bergen-Belsen, I have come to this place believing that it is my moral duty to help other nations that have suffered from genocide. One of the worst slogans that we ever hear is, “Never again.” One never imagines that what happened in the second world war could have happened all over again only 25 years ago, but it did. The mustard gas reminds me of that all too clearly. If we want to make “Never again” more than just a slogan, we have to really mean it.
	We have to ensure that the Kurdish genocide is recognised as one of the world’s greatest crimes. That is why, as I said, I am very proud to be here today. This is an historic moment for our Parliament, which has such close relations with Kurdistan, and I hope very much that we will support the motion to recognise the genocide and the evil crimes of Saddam Hussein.

Ann Clwyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) on securing this important debate, which, of course, has particular significance around this time. For years, I have chaired meetings in the Grand Committee Room of the House of Commons and we have commemorated Halabja year after year. Indeed, in 1988 along with Members from across the House, I took a group of women to a hospital in London where some of the survivors of the Halabja incident were recovering. There were women who had been badly burned by chemicals, and some could not speak because the chemical weapons had harmed their windpipes. I hope that those people survived, and I was glad that at least some of them had the opportunity to be brought to London for treatment.
	In 1988-89 my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who was in the Chamber earlier, attempted to protest at the Iraqi embassy about the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. At the time, the ambassador told us that he knew nothing about it; it was all a mystery to him. He said, “Would you like to visit Baghdad?” We said, “No, we’d actually like to go and visit Kurdistan where the chemical weapons attack has taken place.” He continued to say, “I don’t know anything about it but I will get in touch with Baghdad and see what we can do.” He played a cat and mouse game with us for six months, at the end of which I sent a letter to the Financial Times saying that it was obviously just a game. However, it was not a game for us politicians who had followed the Kurds for many years. We protested in this House in 1988, 1989 and throughout.
	I first became involved with the Kurds as early as 1977, before I was a politician, when many Kurds were students at Cardiff university. One, of course, was Barham Salih, and many prominent Kurds were at that university. There were also Iraqi students, and they told us what was happening in Iraq. It was difficult to get an accurate picture at that time, and it was not until the chemical weapons attack that the public in the west were made aware of the kind of weapons that Saddam Hussein was prepared to use against his own people. The charge of genocide was proved in the tribunal in Iraq, and many prominent Iraqis were tried. Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as Chemical Ali, was subsequently sentenced to death. The charge of genocide was made against him and it was proved.
	Some of us have campaigned over a long period. I chaired the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq—CARDRI—which many Kurds and Iraqis living in London were members of at that time. We continually published records of what was happening to the Kurds and Iraqis, and what was going on in the prisons. We had good but horrific accounts of the kind of torture being used against the people of Kurdistan and Iraq. Some of the kinds of torture were horrific. Later, I opened the genocide museum in Kurdistan, and I remember relatives of those who had been killed
	during the Anfal campaign coming up to me. It was a memorable day—it was snowing; it was grey—and going into that museum of torture and seeing where so many Kurds had perished left a lasting impression on us all.
	Women were coming towards me with photographs of their relatives who had died. They were elderly women carrying photographs wrapped in cling film, and they showed me which of their relatives had died in that torture centre in Sulaymaniyah. CARDRI collected a lot of evidence. We had photographs and witness statements, and a few years later when Indict was set up, for several years it collected evidence of Iraqi war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. I am glad to say that the evidence was used in the trials that subsequently took place in Baghdad.
	Many knew, or thought we knew, what was happening in Iraq, but things were not fully explained until after 2003. I first went to Kurdistan in 1991 and returned every two or three years after that. There were constant stories of disappearances and sightings of people in prisons. Nobody knew where their loved ones were.
	The Anfal campaign was horrific. I have looked again at a Human Rights Watch report published in July 1993, entitled, “Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds”, which states:
	“Allegations about enormous abuses against the Kurds by government security forces had been circulating in the West for years before the events of 1991; Kurdish rebels had spoken of 4,000 destroyed villages and an estimated 182,000 disappeared persons during 1988 alone. The…Anfal, the official military codename used by the government in its public pronouncements and internal memoranda, was well known inside Iraq, especially in the Kurdish region. As all the horrific details have emerged, this name has seared itself into popular consciousness—much as the Nazi German Holocaust did with its survivors. The parallels are apt, and often chillingly close…In…February 1990, Human Rights in Iraq, Middle East Watch reconstructed what took place from exile sources, with what in retrospect turned out to be a high degree of accuracy. Even so, some of the larger claims made by the Kurds seemed too fantastic to credit. As it transpires, this has been a humbling, learning process for all those foreigners who followed Kurdish affairs from abroad. Western reporters, relief workers, human rights organizations and other visitors to Iraqi Kurdistan have come to realize that the overall scale of the suffering inflicted on the Kurds by their government was by no means exaggerated.”
	The report goes on to say that Middle East Watch
	“can now demonstrate convincingly a deliberate intent on the part of the government of…Saddam Hussein to destroy, through mass murder, part of Iraq’s Kurdish minority…Two government instruments…the…1987 national census and the declaration of “prohibited areas”…were institutional foundations of this policy. These instruments were implemented against the background of nearly two decades of government-directed “Arabization”, in which mixed-race districts, or else lands that Baghdad regarded as desirable or strategically important, saw their Kurdish population diluted by Arab migrant farmers provided with ample incentives to relocate, and guarded by government troops…The logic of the Anfal, however, cannot be divorced either from the Iran-Iraq War. After 1986, both the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), the two major parties, received support from the Iranian government and sometimes took part in joint military raids against Iraqi government positions”.
	The report goes on to describe the link, but it does not make any difference to what Saddam Hussein did to his own people.
	Many will be familiar with the attacks in Halabja in March 1988—the incident caused a brief international ripple—but they might be surprised to learn that the
	first use of poison gas against the Kurds by central Government occurred 11 months earlier. All told, Middle East Watch recorded 40 separate attacks on Kurdish targets, some of which involved multiple sorties over several days, between 1987 and August 1988. Each of those attacks were war crimes, involving the use of a banned weapon. The fact that non-combatants were often victims added to the offence. In the Anfal, at least 50,000 people—possibly 100,000—many of them women and children, were killed out of hand between February and September 1988. Their deaths did not come in the heat of battle: those Kurds were systematically put to death in large numbers on the orders of the central Government in Baghdad just days, sometimes weeks, after being rounded-up in villages marked for destruction, or else while fleeing from army assaults in prohibited areas.
	Two experienced researchers from Human Rights Watch spent six months in northern Iraq between April and September 1992, gathering testimonial information about the Anfal. Previously, one 12-year old boy had been the only known survivor of many accounts of Kurds —men, women and children—being trucked southward to the Arab heartland of Iraq in large numbers, and then ‘disappeared’. It was assumed they had all been summarily executed, but there was no proof.
	I have had to stand at the side of many mass graves in Iraq, seeing the bodies excavated, and I remember one particular occasion in Kurdistan when what was assumed to be a mass grave of peshmerga was being uncovered. The relatives stood around as the skeletons were slowly brought out. One old man standing near me recognised his son, who had been a peshmerga, from the wedding ring on his hand. Those of us who have seen mass graves elsewhere in Iraq and Kurdistan will know how terrible it is for families to stand around waiting to identify a piece of clothing or jewellery.
	In al-Hilla, I watched a team of British forensic scientists help with the excavation of a mass grave, and they found babies still held in their mother’s or father’s arms. When they could not identify a body, they would put the remains in a plastic bag and put it on the top of a grave. Then people would walk around the graves looking inside the bags to see if they recognised anything. That is an appalling way to have to identify the body of a dead relative, but it is still going on in Iraq and Kurdistan, because—as someone once said to me—Iraq is one mass grave.
	I would like to see that work continue, because it is important that people have some closure. At least they would know that their loved one was shot there, died there and was buried there, because a lot of people still do not know. I have seen queues down the streets outside the Free Prisoners Association with people trying to find out if there is any information on a missing person. Many people in Kurdistan and Iraq are still grieving because they have not had closure on the death of their relative.
	Based on the evidence we now have, Middle East Watch and other organisations urge the international community to recognise that genocide occurred in the Kurdistan during 1988. The legal obligations to act on the basis of that information, to punish its perpetrators and prevent its recurrence, are undeniable.
	As I said at the beginning, many people came to CARDRI and told us what had happened to their relatives. In the 1980s, an Iraqi mother told us about her
	son who was typical of so many thousands of people who have died in Iraq. He was a medical student who went out one day and never returned. Many months later, she was told to go to the mortuary and collect his body. She was led to a room where his body was to be found. She said:
	“When I entered and saw what was inside, I could not believe that there were people who could do such things to other human beings. I looked around and saw nine bodies. My son was in a chair. He had blood all over him, his body was eaten away and bleeding. I looked at the others stretched out on the floor all burnt. One of them had his chest slit with a knife. Another’s body carried the marks of a hot domestic iron all over his head to his feet. Everyone was burnt in a different way. Another one had his legs cut off with an axe. His arms were also axed. One of them had his eyes gouged out and his nose and ears cut off.”
	There were so many of these chilling accounts that at times over the years I found it difficult to believe. The horrors of Saddam’s Iraq will continue to shock and to stun the world.
	In 1989, Saddam Hussein was still considered a valued friend by this country, and the Government of the day still sent trade missions to Baghdad. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North will remember, we were invited to a cultural festival in Baghdad. We protested time after time after time in this Chamber about the fact that our trade links were still in place, and we called for sanctions against Iraq.

Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend raised these issues many times in the 1980s. Does she recall a delegation that she and I went on to both the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry to suggest that we should not take part in the Baghdad arms fair in 1989? We suggested that they should suspend all arms trade with Iraq and were rebuffed by Ministers on that occasion.

Ann Clwyd: I remember that very well. It was not the only occasion we were rebuffed, because we, and many others who are long gone from this House, continued the campaign.
	We should recognise that although Saddam Hussein was executed on the basis of a previous trial, the rest of the co-defendants were charged with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Anfal campaign. As I said earlier, Ali Hassan al-Majid was convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in the Anfal campaign, and sentenced to death. However, he was not executed until 2010. A number of others were sentenced to death, but not on charges of genocide. The case has been well made over a long period of time and I am very happy to support the motion. The Kurds need recognition, and we and others are in a position to recognise genocide.

Stephen Metcalfe: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	Let us consider the following words:
	“I remember 16 March as if it was yesterday, I remember the roar of military aircraft overhead, hiding in my family’s shelter with family and friends, and emerging hours later to find twisted, deformed bodies lying in the street. I remember people crushed under buildings and crying for help. And I remember the black smoke from the napalm bombs, which billowed into the sky.”
	Those are the words of an Iraqi Kurdish journalist, who, like other survivors of the Halabja poison gas massacre, will be haunted by the memories of 16 March 1988 for the rest of his life. To ease their burden, we have to recognise their burden for what it is, and that is why we are here today. It is also why I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for all his work on highlighting the wider issue of genocide and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for his courage and his dedication to this issue.
	This is an important debate and now, more than ever, is the time for recognition. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the events of 16 and 17 March 1988, now is the time to re-examine the issue of recognition. As we have heard, some 5,000 innocent people were brutally murdered in the most abhorrent of circumstances. For the first time in history, a Government used chemical weapons against its own people. As mustard gas and nerve agents rained down, the Kurdish people could do nothing but succumb to the brutal agony that these chemical weapons induce. As we have heard, that is but a snapshot of the Anfal genocide inflicted on the Kurdish people by Saddam Hussein and Chemical Ali between 1987 and 1989. I say “genocide” because I truly believe that is what it was. As I understand it and as we have heard explained, genocide can be defined as the gravest crime against humanity that it is possible to commit. It is the mass extermination of a particular group of people in an attempt to wipe them off the face of the earth.
	In his own words, Saddam Hussein commissioned his cousin to
	“solve the Kurdish problem and slaughter the saboteurs.”
	In doing so, he initiated a two-year genocidal campaign that was characterised by: mass summary executions; the disappearance of many tens of thousands of non-combatants; the destruction of some 2,000 villages; and the death of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people held without judicial order in jail. We must as a Parliament and as a nation recognise those atrocities for what they were—genocide.
	I am a member of the all-party group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq and, as such, I had the privilege of visiting the region last year. Before I continue on the topic of this debate, I want first to pay homage to Kurdistan and its people, many of whom are following this debate here today, for the great strides they have taken since the genocide. On the same day that I saw for myself one of the many mass graves that scar the land, I also saw a nation earnestly seeking to move forward. There is so much to be positive about in Kurdistan and it presents some exciting opportunities for British business. The Kurdistan region today is enjoying an unprecedented era of economic growth and an ever-improving security situation. After decades of destruction, neglect and isolation, the people in Kurdistan are beginning to develop their economy, to let free trade prosper and to promote commerce and investment. But as part of that process of looking forward, we have to help the Kurds to come to terms with their past and to deal with the full extent of what happened.
	I remember that during my visit to Kurdistan I heard again and again about the atrocities, and saw at first hand the visible signs of a nation bearing a great burden. I visited the memorial museum that my hon. Friend the
	Member for Harlow talked about, which is now housed in a former torture centre, where many of the worst crimes were committed. As an all-party group and as a country, we are working to develop our relationship with the region, to maintain the already strong ties we have in many areas and to nurture underdeveloped ties in others. Given Kurdistan’s large diaspora—many of its people are watching today—those ties are extremely important and will only become increasingly so. Kurdistan is our ally and our friend, and it is therefore our duty to acknowledge that and to recognise the true extent of the atrocities that befell its people.
	The Kurdistan Regional Government—the KRG—are calling for Iraq to join the International Criminal Court, as a way of preventing genocide from happening again, and they have asked us to join them in their call for justice. I believe that we have a moral responsibility to respond to that call, not to affirm the status of victim on the Kurdish people but to recognise what they have survived and to walk with them as they continue to surge forward economically, socially, diplomatically and culturally.
	As we have heard, we would not be the first to make this acknowledgement. The Iraqi Government and Supreme Court have acknowledged acts of genocide against the Kurdish people. In 2005, The Hague established that chemical bombing in Kurdistan constituted genocide. Unfortunately, it reverted to using the term “war crimes” in a subsequent appeal. In 2008, the research institute Swiss Peace recognised the genocide. In 2013, we must do the same, and we must use our membership of the EU and the UN to pursue the matter to its fullest extent.
	The Government responded to the petition submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon on the recognition of the genocide against the Kurds in Iraq by saying:
	“It remains the Government’s view that it is not for governments to decide whether a genocide has been committed in this case, as this is a complex legal question.”
	However, other courts have recognised the genocide. Taking into account the definition of genocide, surely it is time for our Government to revisit the matter and to rethink their position. This is a political issue on which we should be taking a lead. A widely cited index published by Monocle placed Britain as the most powerful nation on earth in soft power. We have a reputation for diplomatic excellence and for being a champion of human rights and a beacon of democracy. We owe it to our Kurdish partners to use that power to promote justice for all Kurdish people, wherever in the world they might be.
	There is also a practical element involved. As I learned on my visit to Kurdistan, recognition of the genocide would assist the Kurdistan Government in their mission to uncover the 270 reported mass graves, and the many more unreported mass graves, in which between 500,000 and 1 million missing people were buried. As we have heard, the Kurdistan Mass Graves Commission has said:
	“There is another Iraq under Iraq.”
	That is a chilling statement, and it is one that we have to support. Recognising the genocide against the Kurds is also becoming increasingly pressing, given the ongoing slaughter in Syria and the possible use of chemical weapons there.
	This is an extremely pertinent time to be reflecting on the issue, given that the House recently commemorated Holocaust memorial day. That was a day not only for remembering the Holocaust but for remembering subsequent genocides that have blighted the world, such as those in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur. I would like to see Kurdistan on that list. The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust has made it clear that remembering and acknowledging are acts of reconciliation, but how can we have reconciliation without recognition? Recognition is vital if we are to ensure that such barbaric crimes do not happen again.
	One survivor looked back on his experience in Halabja and said:
	“I screamed. But there was no one left to hear me.”
	I think we owe it to all those who lost their lives, and to all those who bear the haunting memories, to demonstrate that we are listening, that we have heard their cries for justice and that we are going to respond. I therefore call upon the Government formally to recognise the genocide against the Kurds and the people of Iraqi Kurdistan and to use their good offices to encourage other nations, the EU and the UN to do likewise. We must never forget what happened, and we must do all that we can to seek this recognition for the people of Kurdistan.

David Anderson: I should like to start by praising the modern-day Bard, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), for successfully securing the debate, and those wonderful people on the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to hold the debate today. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for the work they have done on this issue.
	Three decades ago, most of us in our places today were not Members of the House, what was happening in Iraq was only part of the background to our lives—perhaps not so much for the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon because of his personal links, but most of us had other things to occupy us. The issue did not get the attention it should have had at the time. Perhaps if we had been as actively involved as we became two decades later, things might have been different. If we had had a different attitude to the Iraqi Government at that time, things might have been different and we would not be talking about the issue today.
	Let me focus on the impact of what happened back then on real human beings. My interaction with Iraq started in 2003, when I was the president of Unison—the biggest trade union in Britain at the time—and a member of the general council of the TUC. Like most people in the labour movement, I was completely and utterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq. I believed that the reasons for going into Iraq were not justified, that the argument about weapons of mass destruction was not proven and that we had gone in far too early, with Hans Blix doing good work on the ground, despite the obstacles put in his way. Nothing should have happened until his work had been completed.
	I remain convinced today that the leader of my party and the Prime Minister at the time decided to go into Iraq alongside the Americans for two reasons. First, he passionately believed that Saddam should be got rid of, and, secondly, he wanted to keep good relations with
	the Americans. I believe that the Americans went in for different reasons. They wanted to get rid of Saddam, too, but they also wanted to gain control of the oil wealth in that part of the world and, even more important for the American Republican party, they wanted to ensure that George Bush got re-elected 18 months after the invasion. I remain convinced that that was why, no matter what we did, the Americans would have gone into Iraq around the time they did, as it was a perfect way of winning the election that lay some 18 months ahead.
	After the military action had finished, my role in my trade union was to ask, “What do we do now?” One benefit of Saddam’s removal was the re-emergence of a trade union movement in Iraq—a movement that, before Saddam’s reign, had been one of the most active and one of the largest from Europe to Australia but that had been suppressed. We took the decision as a trade union to do all we could to try to help people who had not been involved in real trade union activity for at least four decades to get involved in that role in the world again. We started a training scheme for trade union stewards and we brought people from Iraq—basically Kurdistan because no one could get out of the rest of Iraq—to London. This was a training scheme for a small group of trade unionists who could then go back and train the trainers.

Meg Munn: Is my hon. Friend aware of the work done by the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers? Similar work was done with Iraqi trade unions—training trainers so that the Iraqi teachers’ union could develop across the whole of Iraq?

David Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend, and I am very well aware of it. I shall refer later to a member of the delegation I led in 2006. She was the treasurer of NASUWT at the time, and she also chaired the TUC task group on Iraq.
	That training programme was so successful that we ended up expanding it. Instead of bringing people out of Kurdistan to London, we got them out of there to Amman in Jordan, which was much easier in terms of the numbers. I was really proud when we were finally able to establish a trade union training school in Erbil in Kurdistan in early 2006.
	As a newly elected MP, I was delighted to receive the backing of the trade union movement to take a delegation out to Erbil in early 2006. There were eight of us, including members from the NASUWT, the journalists’ union, Unison, local councillors and others active in supporting the Iraqi cause for many years. We went out there to see what we could do to develop trade unionism on the ground. Straight away, I was immensely struck by the attitude of the trade unionists we met. To me, they were comrades. The fact that they were from another part of the world was irrelevant to me. They were my friends, standing up for working people and trying to develop their skills so that they could look after people properly.
	The first thing that those trade union members said to us was, “We need your help. We need your Government to start investing in this country, because if they do not
	invest we will not have work, and if we do not have work we do not have a trade union movement.” That was a very simple equation. When we asked what practical help we could give, they arranged for us to meet their labour, equality and health Ministers and the Minister responsible for matters relating to the Anfal genocide. That was the first time I had really been exposed to what had happened.
	The other thing that those people said to us, very clearly, was “We thank you, as a nation, for what you did for us in 1991, and we thank you even more for what you did for us in 2003, when you liberated us.” That was a shock for me: it was a slap in the face. I had seen what happened in 2003 as an invasion. However, it was all very well for me, sitting in the comfort of Blaydon, to say that it was really, really wrong. It was not me who was being wiped off the face of the earth, it was not my parents who were being buried alive, it was not my village that was being flattened, and it was not my real life—my community—that was being devastated and destroyed. That was happening to these people. Listening to what they said did not change my view that we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons, but what became very clear to me, and has remained clear to me ever since, was that we should have done it 20 years earlier. Why on earth did we not do that? If we had, this disgraceful thing would not have happened.
	What were we doing 20 years earlier? Unfortunately, we were doing the bidding of Saddam Hussein. We were, to an extent, sitting on our hands and supporting the Americans yet again while they, and the rest of the world powers, were sitting back happily watching the Iranians and the Iraqis wipe out 1 million of their own citizens, using them as pawns. If, as a by-product, we saw the Marsh Arabs being wiped off the face of the earth and the attack on the Kurds, we just had to ignore it. It was a price worth paying if Saddam was able to keep the ayatollah and his acolytes under control. Was it worth it in terms of the international situation? Well, other people will decide when it is history, but, looking back and seeing what I see now, I think that it was absolutely the wrong thing to do.
	We were not just sitting back innocently. As was said earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North, we were actively engaged: we were selling arms to that regime. In fact, we were selling arms to both regimes, and it was the wrong thing to do. It may have been very grandiose in the big scheme of things, but it did nothing to help the people on the ground.
	Since that first visit to Kurdistan, I have been back there, and have also been to Baghdad. On both occasions, I was hugely impressed by the generosity and warmth of the people. That is typical of people in the middle east, but it is even more noticeable in Kurdistan. They were like people from the north-east of England, who, as everyone knows, are always much warmer, more generous, more humorous and more giving. Everyone understands that, wherever they are from.
	Other Members who have been to Kurdistan have mentioned the “red house”, the torture chamber in Sulaimani. No one who goes there can fail to be struck by it. The first thing that struck me was what a huge building it was. It is a huge building in the main street of one of the biggest cities in that part of the world. No attempt was made to hide from the public what went on
	in that place. Indeed, everything that was done was documented. The holocaust was mentioned earlier; exactly the same methods were used in this case. There were documents on everyone, and all the documents were in triplicate. Wiping people from the face of the earth was seen as a normal thing to do by people who did not care about them and just wanted to replace them with their own people. It was absolutely unbelievable.
	One thing stuck in my mind particularly. In 2006, as we were walking out of the “red house”, we saw five Kurdish guards in the reception area, sitting around watching television. On the television screen, live, was the trial of Saddam Hussein. I felt that that was real history in the making. For those people, it was life-changing: it would give them a chance to get their lives back. As I said earlier, for people such as me who had not wanted this country to go into Iraq, it was a huge wake-up call, making us ask what we could do. I think that what we can certainly do is promote what we are doing today.

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend is right: the regime did document these events. The most shocking aspect of the DVD I mentioned is the fact that the footage of what happened—such as people being shot—is taken by the regime. The most horrific thing I saw—I am not sure why this was more shocking than seeing somebody being killed—was a man being held by several other men while having his wrist beaten until it was broken, and at the end someone came along and moved his arm but there was no connection between the two parts. It is just brutal, and there is no excuse for our not recognising this, as the evidence is there.

David Anderson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There was never any attempt to pretend this was not happening; it was just hoped that the rest of the world would not care that it was happening and turn a blind eye, which is exactly what we in the international community all did. Today, we have a chance at least to make amends in a small way, and it is very important that we do that.
	As well as visiting the “red house”, I visited some of the villages in the north-east of the country, where people saw their way of life totally terminated. Not only did the perpetrators take the men away from their homes and kill them, but what really shocked me was that many of these people were buried alive. They did not even give them the justice of putting a bullet in their brain. They put them in trenches and covered them over using bulldozers. That is how little feeling, and how much contempt, they had for these people.
	I discussed with families and friends their despair. I visited what effectively had become a concentration camp in the capital, Erbil. Only young men and women were held there. They had been taken from the agricultural area, which had been the bread basket of Iraq and which is now devastated. All these young people want is to go back home. Sadly, however, if they go back home they will not know how to start getting the farms up and running again, because they have lost contact with the farming industry. Their fathers were taken away and killed 20 or 25 years ago, so they have nobody to tell them how to do things.
	We visited a place in the north of the country. I spoke to a village elder, who thought I was the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown);
	I do not know where he got that idea from, or who was more miffed, me or Gordon. This elder explained to me how passionately he had welcomed Baroness Lynda Chalker in 1991, who had gone there in her capacity as overseas aid Minister and had built some temporary accommodation. He remembered that 17 years later, and he felt such gratitude for my country for having helped his country in that way that it made me very proud to be a Member of this House, but it also made me frustrated, as we had not kept up with the work of supporting those people as we should have done. The big question asked of us was why we had not helped them earlier. I have talked about that, and I hope today’s debate will remind us of why we should have.
	I want to read out a letter I received from a very close friend of mine, Hangaw Khan. He is a trade union leader in Kurdistan, and is someone who I am very proud to call a comrade. He asked me if I would go and visit his mother and father, and I said, “Certainly I will”. I did not realise there would be a three-and-a-half-hour ride up into the mountains, but it was well worth doing. They were so proud of what their son had done. When we began our campaign with colleagues from across the House, he sent a letter on behalf of his trade union executive in which he thanked us for starting the campaign and said:
	“Kurdish United Workers are well aware of all the genocide which has been committed against Kurdish people in Iraq. Moreover, our (KUWU) members are made aware that the Kurdish people are still suffering significantly from the genocide effects on all their life aspects.
	We really appreciate your invaluable efforts along side other different parties and groups to ask the government urgently not to ignore all the crimes against humanity which had been committed against our nation for decades and to recognise it as genocide.
	In fact, having recognised this genocide against our nation will enter the history for ever and will be the proud step in the view of human beings especially the Kurdish people. Also, there is no doubt that this act consider as a voice of conscience of humanity.
	Finally, let us thank you very much in the name of our burned country, the pure pink blood of our genocide martyrs, buried alive innocent women and children, burned and drowned thousands Kurdish by chemical gas. As we are part of human beings, we do hope that all of us & the governments and nations will be aware of recognising any genocide which is committed anywhere in the world.”
	That was sent from the Kurdistan United Workers Union last September.
	In the past 50 years, millions of lives have been wasted in Iraq. Billions of pounds have been wasted and trillions of words have been wasted. I hope that the words of Hangaw Khan are not wasted and we should listen to him today. I am convinced that the House will pass this motion, which will be a huge statement, but, to be honest, although that is important it is not as important as our Government saying that they support what we are trying to do. I ask those on both Front Benches to think about what has been said in today’s debate.
	I know that there are legal issues and that people will say that they want to deal with this, but they cannot. We have seen this week the rebirth of that horrible phrase “weasel words”. I have nothing but respect for those on both Front Benches and I know that they are both committed to the work they are doing. Unless we do something other than saying well done to those who have spoken in the debate and unless we get a commitment that our Government will lead this campaign, as we
	should, the debate will have been meaningless. No disrespect to the intention of the people who led the debate or those who supported us in bringing it together, but we need real action.
	We must also bear in mind that 25 years ago, if we had taken real action, we as a nation could have stopped this. We chose not to. Let us not repeat that mistake today.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and others for their speeches and their contribution to this whole issue. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for his speech. As he pointed out, he is the first Kurdish Member of the British Parliament. He and I have shared platforms at Kurdish events and I have no doubt that we will again in the future. He made a very good case for the recognition of what was a genocide of the Kurdish people in Iraq in 1988 and I absolutely support what he said. Next month will be Newroz, the Kurdish new year, which will be celebrated across a wide range of communities both in this country and all over the region.
	One hopes that we will be able to draw attention to what happened in Iraq in 1988. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) pointed out, she and I were both Members of this House at that time and we both frequently raised the issue, including in the British media. Although the lack of knowledge among much of the public is understandable because of how the media failed to report things, we must be honest that it took a long time for most of the media and the political establishment in this country to cotton on to what was happening to the Kurdish people in Iraq. To be honest, a lot of British Government policy was blindsided by their obsession with supporting Iraq against Iran in the dreadful Iran-Iraq war and Britain’s considerable economic interests in Iraq at the time, not least in oil exploration and exploitation and so on. We must have a sense of deep self-criticism about the process. If we do not have that, it does us no favours.
	The news finally came out about the use of gas and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) pointed out, how the villages were bombed first to break the glass so that the gas had the maximum effect. That was an evil piece of work in which a large number of wonderful, brilliant people lost their lives. In remembering a genocide, we must work out how it happened, how it came about and how we can prevent it from happening again.
	Let me say a few words in general about Kurdistan, the Kurdish people and how we can move on. There is a complicated narrative in world history of equating nations, ethnic communities and languages with nation states, which does not always work. The end of the first world war was a seminal point for the whole region—this is germane to the history of the region. The Kurdish people had been part of and had recognition within the Ottoman empire, and operated with a Kurdish identity and language. They took at face value Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points, as did many people in the region, including Palestinian people and many others, and assumed that they would achieve nationhood as a result. The high
	point of Kurdish recognition was a sandwich between the treaty of Sèvres and the treaty of Lausanne. Between those treaties there was recognition of a Kurdish state. Modern Turkey was established, the western interests were more interested in a buffer against the Soviet Union and in the mandates that France and Britain achieved further south, and the Kurdish people and their wishes were obliterated. Britain did not have clean hands in this. We took part in the establishment of modern Iraq and the first aerial bombardment of people using chemical weapons was by Britain in northern Iraq in 1922 against Kurdish people. So there is a history of obliteration of the Kurdish people, their language, their culture and identity. What Saddam was doing was the ultimate in oppression of a nation or people, but the treatment of Kurdish people in other countries in the region to this day needs to be examined—in Iran, in Syria and in Turkey.
	I have a substantial Kurdish population in my constituency, mainly but not all emanating from Turkey. Indeed, I have visited most parts of Kurdistan over the years. It is sad to report that we still do not have full recognition of Kurdish people in modern Turkey, or mother tongue teaching in all Turkish schools, or indeed in any Turkish schools except those where Kurdish is the first language. It is incumbent on us, if Turkey wants to be a partner in the European Union or anything else, to put a great deal of pressure on it and say, “You have to give greater recognition, linguistic rights, cultural rights and all the other things to the Kurdish people in Turkey.”
	It does not particularly help when the mayor of a major city such as Diyarbakir is put on trial for producing information in the Kurdish language, which is the normal language for that part of the country. The break-up of the Ottoman empire led to that situation, and there has been this passion ever since for recognition of the Kurdish. To a huge extent, that has been achieved with the Kurdish autonomous region of Iraq. It is not totally correct to call it independent because in international legal terms it is not an independent recognised state, but in reality it is recognised as a representative place of the Kurdish people.
	It is more than welcome that over the past few weeks, under pressure following hunger strikes and the dreadful assassinations in Paris a few weeks ago, the Turkish Government have openly admitted that they have to talk to Öcalan as a recognisable leader of the Kurdish people in Turkey. There is a growing sense of unity between Kurdish people within the nation states and a recognition that they have to come together. Does this mean that there is going to be a country called Kurdistan that encompasses parts of the other countries in the future? I do not know. As far as I am aware, none of the Kurdish national movements calls for an independent Kurdistan outwith national borders any longer. They all call for recognition within national borders. We have to understand, welcome and recognise that.
	If you oppress people, deny them their language, deny them their cultural rights, drive them into the ground in the way minorities have been treated prior to genocides all over the world, including native Americans, Jewish people and many others in the past 150 years, you end up with the acceptance of the ultimate oppression, which is what happened in that genocide in 1988. So I support the motion that is before us today.
	Many have drawn attention to the achievements, such as they are, in modern Iraq with the Kurdish Autonomous Region, and I recognise those. Indeed, I visited the region after the Gulf war in 1991. With colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), I opposed the Iraq war in 2003, not because I was in any sense ever an apologist for Saddam Hussein or what he did, but because I did not believe that the motives for the war were the right ones—I believed they were more to do with American military power and military resources than anything else—and I thought an awful lot of people would die and an awful lot of money would be spent as a result of the war. Although we will never agree completely on that, I think we all agree that successive Iraqi Governments have an abominable record on their treatment of the Kurdish people. One hopes that the Kurdish Autonomous Region will be recognised universally and that it will be a place where Kurdish people can live.
	When we talk of genocides and holocausts, the holocaust against Jewish people in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s is paramount in everyone’s thoughts. Attending Holocaust memorial day ceremonies is an important thing, as is young people understanding what the holocaust was about, but it is also important to understand that there have been other genocides around the world. There is not time to go through all of them or define them all now, but the European treatment of native Americans during the colonisation of north America from the 16th century onward, but particularly later on, was to all intents and purposes a genocide against those people; other examples are Cambodia and Rwanda—an abominable and appalling series of events. Taking place closer to the region we are discussing today was the Armenian massacre in 1915.
	Whenever one of us tables an early-day motion recognising and associating that massacre in principle with what has happened to the Kurdish people, we attract great criticism from people in Turkey who, frankly, ought to know better, but who say that we have no right to draw attention to that. It is important that we understand the history of the abominable treatment of people because of racist attitudes and approaches, which end in the vilest abuses of human rights being condoned.

Bob Stewart: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Holocaust memorial day. Having been slightly involved in what I consider to have been a holocaust, in Bosnia, whenever I speak at or attend a Holocaust memorial day ceremony, I do not think only of the Jewish holocaust. I certainly think of Armenia, the Kurds and the Cambodians as well. I totally agree with him: when we speak of a holocaust, we must mean more than one particular nation.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, on which we agree.
	I am proud to represent a significant number of Kurdish people in my constituency. I am proud of the contribute they make, whether they came to this country or were born here. In a month’s time, when we celebrate Newroz in Finsbury park, that will be, as ever, a joyous celebration—hopefully this time with the greatest possible unity between Kurdish people from every part of the Kurdish area.
	If we recognise a genocide, that is a big step. We are recognising something that is defined in law as an attempt to obliterate a people because of their identity, their race or their ethnicity. In doing that, we recognise that something awful happened, and we have to examine ourselves and what we as a country or one of a group of countries did or did not do at the time. But doing that helps the next generation to understand that not forgetting puts one in a position to try to influence the future and protect minorities, wherever they are in the world. Tragically, the genocides we have been discussing today were not the first, and although I hope they were the last, I am not sure that they were. It is recognition and understanding of peoples, their rights, their identity, their culture and their traditions that bring about a safer and more secure world. Achieving that is not necessarily about wars, bombs and invasions; it is much more about understanding and recognition of people and their rights, and sharing resources not stealing them.

Ian Lucas: We have had an absolutely outstanding debate. Everyone present knows that the cause of recognising the genocide in Kurdistan has noble, well informed and eloquent torchbearers. They brought to the House speeches of great force and sincerity that made the case very eloquently indeed. Everyone who has spoken should be proud of the contribution they made. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) that I have listened closely and learned so much. I will consider what has been said extremely carefully.
	I am conscious that I am the first person to speak who has not visited Kurdistan, for which I should perhaps apologise; I hope that will be remedied shortly. I have become aware, through my role on the Front Bench, of the great warmth that exists between the people of Kurdistan and the people of the United Kingdom. I have had many discussions about Kurdistan and heard many accounts of the importance of that relationship. What is striking about the strength of the relationship is that, despite the fact that there are aspects of it that bring shame on Britain, as we have heard, because previous Governments of all colours have done things we should not be proud of, the people of Kurdistan, in their current dealings and their warmth, have shown us forgiveness and respect, to their great credit, for which we should thank them very much.
	I should start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). One of the great advantages of this House is that people who come from different backgrounds bring their own experiences, cultures and knowledge to such subjects. He spoke eloquently, and with a power that was compelling. His personal connections are very special. He should be commended for persuading the Backbench Business Committee, which we should also thank, to allow the debate. We all know that this matter must be taken away, considered and reflected on before moving forward. By bringing it to the House’s attention, he has taken a big step in dealing with the issue and carrying it forward.
	We heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), who brought to the debate her experiences from visits to the region and from the links between Sheffield and Kurdistan, which are building all the time. She referred to films she
	has seen of the terrible events that took place, which were referred to many times. I remember very clearly watching a “Newsnight” report about the Halabja attacks in the late 1980s, shortly after the attacks took place, which shocked me profoundly. The report showed a ferocity, an inhumanity and an extraordinary inability to treat people with respect that it was difficult to believe could exist. I would be interested to see the films she referred to, because the words that we have struggled to find today to explain how dreadful the events were cannot fully reflect the acts that took place.
	The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) speaks with great passion on these issues and brought his personal experience to bear on the facts. I think that his Jewish background adds a particular, and hugely relevant, context to the debate. Earlier this year I attended an excellent Holocaust memorial day service just across the road, and I was very conscious of the constant emphasis that the Jewish community places on the fact that the holocaust is not just about them. On that day, a Rwandan survivor explained the effect of the Rwandan genocide on her, and she spoke as eloquently as the holocaust survivors. It is very important that we see this as part of a broader picture.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has an extremely long, impressive and consistent record on human rights issues, particularly in connection with Iraq. I first got to know her in the period after I came to the House between 2001 and 2003, when she was involved in the organisation Indict, which she mentioned. Not many people were involved in that campaign at the time—it became much more evident after 2003—but she was dogged, determined and absolutely committed to the cause of bringing people to justice. She pursued that from the time I met her in 2001 and is pursuing it today. She has a very long and very proud record. The consistency that she has shown on this issue right through from the 1980s—in fact, since 1977, she told us today—until now does her great credit. She is a very busy woman, so unfortunately she is not here at the moment. I am proud to put on the record the fact that she is a friend, and she has taught me a huge amount about this issue.
	The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) has an advantage over me in that he has visited Kurdistan. He, too, made a compelling case. It is important that the public are aware that we are visiting these places and considering these issues, which are hugely important for all of us as parliamentarians. It does great credit to all Members present that they are here to take part in this important debate.
	We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson)—I understand him like no one else in this House does. I remember a conversation that we had outside the Chamber when he described his complicated position on Iraq and the contradiction that he sees between his views on the Iraq war in 2003 and what he has discovered from the contacts that he has had subsequently. This is not a straightforward issue; it is a difficult one. Our job is to deal with difficult issues, such as the subject of this debate.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—another Member with a long and proud record of campaigning on these issues—said, it is
	a big step for this House and any Government to say that individual sets of incidents and events constitute a genocide. As we have heard, it is a step that has been taken by other Parliaments, but not necessarily by the Governments of the countries that those Parliaments represent.
	The question of whether a set of incidents can be described as genocide has a legal status established under the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, which defines it as
	“mass killings or other acts intended to destroy a particular group of people.”
	The word is used colloquially, but its definition under international law is specific. Genocide requires both the material element of the act of killing and the mental element of the intention to destroy a particular group.

Bob Stewart: I have been involved in a genocide. To add to the hon. Gentleman’s point, a poor, frightened, absolutely terrified individual facing the agony of being killed does not give a damn about whether it is called a genocide or a crime against humanity—they are frightened beyond their wits. I am sure he will agree with that. These definitions have always worried me and that is what I thought when I was in Bosnia in 1992-93.

Ian Lucas: The hon. Gentleman speaks with passion and eloquence from his own experience, which we all respect. We recognise the humanity of what he says. We need to consider how best we can together use the hope behind what we are doing today to ensure that incidents on the scale of a genocide do not happen again. That is what we need to try to achieve. We should reflect on what has been said and consider how best we can prevent genocide from ever occurring again. One genocide is sufficient. We never want to see it again.

Meg Munn: I understand the legal issues that my hon. Friend has raised and I am sure that the Minister will address them. I am concerned that the apologies that Governments now often make for things that happened many years ago are not terribly relevant, because they relate to something that somebody else did. In this instance, however, a Government could recognise genocide. That is not particularly something that this or any previous Government have done, but perhaps now is the time, on the back of this debate, for Opposition and Government parties to come together and ask whether this and future Governments should have a process to recognise genocide, because that is important.

Ian Lucas: It certainly is important that such matters are dealt with collectively. We are an international community with international institutions and, in international situations such as the one we are discussing, the appropriate approach is to work through international justice bodies to recognise when certain circumstances amount to a genocide. We then need to use our institutions to establish the facts and their implications in law. The legal implications of recognising any set of events—not just those under discussion—as a genocide are considerable. They constitute a particular crime under international law, which imposes obligations on states to prevent and punish with regard to such circumstances.
	If something that has happened in the past—such as the events under discussion—is defined as genocide, the question arises of whether retrospective action can be taken. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified whether it is his understanding that a statement that an act was genocide would have a retrospective effect and allow action to be taken against anyone who is held responsible for actions that took place in the 1980s.
	We heard about the considerable progress that Kurdistan has made. That has built on the relationship that exists between this country and the Kurdistan region of Iraq. I hope that this debate will add to that relationship. There is a strong group of Members of this House who have spoken eloquently today and who have great respect for Kurdistan and the Kurdish people.
	We must work together to reflect on our discussions today. We must also look at what action is being taken in other countries, whether by their Parliaments or Governments, on this issue of genocide in the Kurdish region and see what is the appropriate forum to take that forward.

David Anderson: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) asked about practical things that the Opposition can do. Will the shadow Minister commit our party to entering discussions with representatives of the Kurdistan regional government based in this country to see whether they can help us to get evidence that would help to create a legal argument that we could present to the international community? Other countries could then say whether they think that it was genocide or not and give reasons why.

Ian Lucas: I would be pleased to meet representatives of the Kurdish regional government to discuss the issues that we have been debating and to see what barriers are in the way of this matter being taken forward. I would also be pleased to discuss this with the Minister to explore what further common ground there is on this issue, which is considered important by a number of Back Benchers from both our parties who have made an eloquent and compelling case.
	We cannot reach conclusions today, but we have heard a compelling case. This is the start of the matter, not the end. We need to continue to discuss this in detail and to reflect on the best way to take it forward. That is best done collectively both within this country and internationally. We need to reflect on the action that other Parliaments have taken and consider what steps it would be best to take to deal with the appalling set of circumstances that the people of Kurdistan suffered in the 1980s. We must work together to ensure that their pain, suffering and grief is not shared by any other group of people in the future.

Alistair Burt: I do not know about other hon. Members or those who are watching this debate, wherever they are around the world, but my goodness, I have found this a tough debate to listen to. As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said, the quality of this debate has been exceptional, as has the knowledge, compassion and honesty with which colleagues have spoken. I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of the Government.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to hold it. Over time, my hon. Friend will have to get used to being congratulated on a regular basis. I found his narrative powerful and compelling, but those of us who have heard him speak previously know there is nothing unusual in that. He has already made a name for himself in the House, and he has further cemented that today. He spoke exceptionally well and we are impressed.
	The pain with which my hon. Friend described his background and the circumstances of being a refugee was graphically illustrated in a way that none of us with a more forensic sense about these things could possibly repeat or be able to share. When we occasionally debate who comes across our borders, it should constantly bring a measure of pride to this country to remember the reputation we have had for providing sanctuary to people who have fled conflict and pain that is unimaginable to most of our constituents. My hon. Friend put that point extremely well.
	I will mention the contributions of most of those who have spoken in the debate and seek to weave in their remarks. I especially mention the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) who were in the House—as was I—at the times of which we speak. They took part in these events in a way that I did not, and spoke well and effectively about the things going on that, alas, we knew far too little about. Both of them spoke very graphically, and although the details of what happened provided by the right hon. Lady were painful to hear, occasionally such things need to be said to remind us that behind all the figures and the 182,000, there are individual circumstances to be described.
	A few years ago I went with colleagues to Rwanda and the genocide memorial at Murambi where some 60,000 people were corralled and killed over a few days. Seeing the places where mass attacks have taken place, and mass graves such as those mentioned by the right hon. Lady, leaves an indelible impression and we cannot help but be changed by what we hear. I commend colleagues for the way they have spoken, and I hope many people get the opportunity to read the debate and consider carefully what we have said.
	As many Members have said, the UK’s ties with Iraqi Kurds are significant. Historically, those ties were cemented in 1991 with the United Kingdom’s strong support, led by the then Prime Minister John Major, for protecting the Kurdish people by enforcing no-fly zones. Since then, successive UK Governments have highlighted the need to support the rights of the Kurdish people, as well as those of other minorities in Iraq. I was in that region a couple of years ago and people were looking forward to John Major coming for a commemoration to mark 20 years since the establishment of the no-fly zone and the relief of Kuwait. There was no doubt in what esteem Sir John was held, which as a friend it was a pleasure to see. Friends in the other place will also know full well how Sir John is regarded, and others from that time also deserve great credit for the way in which they spoke out on behalf of those who were being persecuted.
	In an interesting speech, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) confronted honestly the problems that are occasionally thrown up by the twin difficulties of foreign policy and hindsight. He is right to say that
	sometimes we do not know everything and make decisions as best we can at the time. He asked whether we should have done more and earlier, but I remember the 1991 Gulf war and the arguments at the time. Should forces have pressed on to Baghdad? It is easily forgotten that there was no mandate for that; there was a coalition to free Kuwait, but had a decision been taken to press on to Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein—it became clear subsequently that that might have been the thing to do—there would have been resistance to what would have seemed an intervention too far. Interventions are so much easier in hindsight than they are at the time. The hon. Gentleman and I know that full well in relation to other issues we are dealing with at the moment.
	The hon. Member for Islington North mentioned arms fairs in Baghdad and rebuffs from Ministers at the time. Were my colleagues right at that time? I can say from the Dispatch Box that they probably were not right, but what might they have done with the wisdom of hindsight and the knowledge that we have now? That is the spirit in which I confront the difficulties of hindsight and foreign policy.
	As a number of hon. Members have made clear, the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein systematically persecuted and oppressed ethnic and religious groups. No group suffered more than Iraq’s Kurds. Saddam Hussein’s regime carried out a number of atrocities against the Kurds over a quarter of a century. As many as 100,000 Kurds were killed in the Anfal attacks, and many more were displaced. This year, we will remember the attack on Halabja in 1988 as we reach its 25th anniversary in March. Iraqi planes bombarded the town with chemical weapons, causing the deaths of 3,500 to 5,000 people, as colleagues have described in the debate.
	I shall say more about the appalling crimes committed against Iraq’s Kurds and the need to ensure that no people suffer a similar fate, but, like other colleagues, I would first like to say a few words about the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq and our relationship with them. In remembering the past, it is important to recognise and put on record what has happened since those appalling crimes.
	I was able to see the fruits of our relationship first hand during my recent visit to Erbil—the second time I have been able to visit the region. My friend the hon. Member for Wrexham is absolutely right that he should get there as soon as he can. It is a very good place to visit. I am sure his remarks on visiting were heard in all the right quarters. He can look forward to going and seeing the new consulate—the site for it has been identified and it is due to be built. He will be very welcome there. He just needs to let me know and we will see what can be done—[Interruption.] I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), who piped up at that moment, for her indefatigable work on building democracy in many different places, but not least in that region. Efforts are now being made on the building blocks of democracy and the institutions that must be built—perhaps in recognition of so much that has gone wrong. As she said, and as she knows from her work for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, an election is not democracy per se. We must ensure that there is another election and that elections are free and fair, and
	that institutions support elections and that power changes. Sooner or later, people will realise that power is invested not only in individuals but in institutions. In some of the places where we are working collectively, there is a way to go, but the efforts being made in the Kurdistan region of Iraq make it clear that the work is being done on fertile ground. I therefore pay tribute to her and her hon. Friends.
	During my recent visit, I had the pleasure of meeting both President Barzani and Deputy Prime Minister Imad Ahmad. I toured the British-designed airport with the Minister for the Interior, Karim Sinjari, and met several other Cabinet Ministers. With Minister of Planning Dr Ali Sindi, I attended the signing of a contract to expand a major national school of government from London to an international capacity building programme with the KRG.
	In October, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced that our consulate-general in Erbil should be maintained on a permanent footing. The KRG have generously donated land where a new UK consulate-general will be built. The Head of the Department of Foreign Relations, Falah Bakir, presented me with a letter confirming the donation during my visit.
	My visit was rounded off with a tour of the 7,000-year-old citadel, Erbil’s premier tourist location, which claims to be the longest continuously occupied place in the world. I was pleased to note the involvement of British archaeologists in the ongoing programme to restore the citadel—that is another example of the UK’s long-standing ties with the Kurdistan region. Any colleagues looking for tips on being re-elected should simply go around Erbil with the governor. We paid a visit to the market, where the response to him was terrific. I wanted a piece of it to take back to Biggleswade to help me in my next election campaign. It was a genuine and spontaneous outburst of affection for the gentleman as we toured the market, and I thought, “This chap knows what he’s doing.”
	Visits are not all one way. Members of the KRG frequently visit the United Kingdom. Earlier this month, President Barzani made his first official visit to Belfast, and had discussions with, among others, Northern Ireland’s First and Deputy First Ministers, as well as the Speaker of the Assembly.
	Even as we rightly remember those who lost their lives 25 years ago, we should also think about how far the KRG has come. Those returning to Erbil years later see real changes, and are struck by its relative security and burgeoning economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who made yet another impressive contribution, reflected on how those fleeing persecution as Christians from other parts of Iraq were able to find a home in Erbil and in the Kurdish region. It is a proper distinction to make. As we reflect on Christian flight across the middle east—and the persecution of any religious minority other than the majority in the locality at the time—we realise how important it is that people’s rights are recognised and protected, and that others are prepared to acknowledge them. Tragically, across the region this evening, there are many families camped out in the homes of others, seeking refuge from the conflicts that rage about them. It is not inappropriate to recognise the generosity of the KRG and the Kurdish region in this regard.
	Among EU countries, the UK has the largest number of companies registered and operating within the Kurdistan region, while 61 British delegates, representing 39 companies, participated in the Erbil trade fair in October last year. My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) made particular reference to the importance of that trade relationship, and he was right to do so as it provides opportunities for many.
	Although the oil and gas sector understandably accounts for significant UK investment in the Kurdish region, it is not the only sector where our companies are actively engaged. We know that more can be done, which is why we are strengthening our commercial team in Erbil to help British companies do business in the region.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I gently remind the Minister that the subject of the debate is genocide? I know that he wants to talk about other areas, but we do want to try to keep within the scope of the debate.

Alistair Burt: I will happily do so. I thought that it might be helpful to set the region in context before turning to some of the tougher parts that were described. If I may attempt to relate my remarks to Iraq in general, not forgetting the Kurdish region, we should also take a moment to remember, as the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war approaches, those who died during the war, including 178 British service personnel, and of course many Iraqis and other nationals. That sacrifice has contributed to the relative peace of the region now and our ability to look back and evaluate the circumstances of the time.
	The anniversary is also a time to reflect on Iraq’s present, and its future. During my recent visit, I saw both the challenges and the opportunities that Iraq faces. Fundamental political issues remain unresolved. Human rights standards are low, and public services, infrastructure and employment opportunities are inadequate. But Iraq has the chance to be one of the success stories of the coming decade as a stable democracy, with the patient work being done on democracy building throughout the rest of Iraq, the engagements we have with Ministers there, and the efforts they are making to confront some of the very difficult political challenges—I met a range of Ministers, including my good friend Foreign Minister Zebari, who chaired a ministerial trade council with me—and improve the future for all in Iraq. As we remember the past, and consider the challenges of the present, I hope we can also look forward to a future for Iraq that is more stable, democratic and prosperous, and that the UK can play a role in making that a reality in the years ahead.
	Turning to today’s motion, I shall set out the Government’s position on whether we should recognise the terrible events of the Anfal campaign as an act of genocide. I am aware of the commendable support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon for the victims of Saddam’s dreadful campaign against the Kurds and his call for Saddam’s crimes to be recognised as genocide by the international community. I have heard today, as we all have, that this view is shared by many other hon. Members, some of whom could not be present today, and by many members of the public who signed a petition that was submitted to Parliament by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon.
	My hon. Friend and other Members will be aware of the Government’s position on the principle of genocide recognition—indeed, he and the hon. Member for Wrexham stated it. I am greatly sympathetic to the motion. The Government do not in any way oppose it and I have no doubt that Parliament will respond to the views expressed in the motion by my hon. Friend. It is currently the Government’s view, as we stated in responding to my hon. Friend’s e-petition, that it is not for Governments to decide whether genocide has been committed in this case, as there is a complex legal position. The hon. Member for Wrexham was quite right: it has implications for both today and yesterday. An international judicial body finding a crime to have been genocide often plays an important part in whether the United Kingdom recognises one as such. Whether or not the term “genocide” is applicable in this case, it is clear that appalling atrocities were perpetrated under Saddam Hussein against the Iraqi Kurds. His final conviction by the Iraq tribunal was for his crimes against humanity.

Meg Munn: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I genuinely call him an hon. Friend in this and in many other circumstances. I understand the issues he is raising, and he will have heard the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas). In taking this issue seriously, will he and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office commit to campaigning on this issue and raising it with other people, including international bodies? He knows just how strongly hon. Members feel.

Alistair Burt: Let me get a little further.
	So many suffered as a result of Saddam’s criminal activities, and we should remember all the victims of the regime. I reiterated that view in my foreword to the programme for the KRG’s recent conference on the issue. It is also a reminder that any use of chemical or biological weapons is abhorrent and that responsible countries consider their ongoing production, stockpiling or use to be completely unacceptable. It is our moral duty to join the international community in its efforts to prevent future atrocities. We will continue to call, at every opportunity, for all countries to respect minority rights and for the full implementation of the chemical weapons conventions.
	Of course, these issues form a part of our dialogue with the Kurdistan regional government, in particular with the Minister for Martyrs and Anfal Affairs. In May last year, our then consul-general spoke at a ceremony alongside the Minister to mark the reburial of 730 Kurds killed in 1988 by Saddam’s forces as part of the Anfal campaign. More recently, our consul-general in Erbil discussed Saddam’s Anfal campaign with the Minister for Martyrs and Anfal Affairs in November. He will represent the UK at future ceremonies and express the UK’s remembrance of these tragic events. I had the opportunity to speak to the Minister myself when I was there recently.
	The Government’s position is therefore clear, but it is not necessarily comfortable or sufficient. To the horror, no doubt, of officials, I have listened very carefully to the debate. In line with the hon. Member for Wrexham, I am sure our briefs said exactly the same thing: be very careful. There are implications and I make no bones about that. This is not a casual decision to be made at
	the Dispatch Box while listening to a debate with an understandable emotional undertone with all the horrors spelled out, and I am not going to do that. However, I have listened very carefully and I do not think that I would be respecting the mood of the House and the way in which this issue has been debated if I were simply to say, “Look, this is our position, which you all know very well, and that is where we are.” I do not think that that is what the hon. Member for Wrexham said either. I think we both know the implications, but I think we both recognise that we would like to go a bit further.
	I have listened carefully, with whatever compassion I may possess, to the case that has been made. I do not doubt that the Foreign Secretary will read the debate with exactly the same sense. I am sure the Government will find the vote of Parliament helpful when further representations are made, as they will be.
	The hon. Member for Wrexham resisted an easy hit: he could have simply responded to the motion and said, “This must be done.” Conscious of the obligations on the Opposition, he could not go that far, and neither can I. However, I take on board his view that if there is not an easy way to bring this matter to international judicial tribunals—and there may not be at the moment —we need to consider what more we might be able to do, taking into account the other things that have been said. The hon. Member for Islington North made it clear that others have similar things to consider, so we are dealing with a lot of implications.
	Listening to and understanding the case gives one a sense that there might be more we collectively ought to be able to do to recognise the horror and severity of what was done, which was clearly targeted on a group of people just because of who they were. If I may, I will accept the hon. Gentleman’s offer to think collectively about how the United Kingdom might be able to take things forward. There is no change in our policy for now, and we are correct in taking that approach, but the issues that have been mentioned will be raised again, so we may have to think more about them. We will certainly have to talk to other Parliaments and Governments about how things have been done and be fully aware of the concerns. That is a reasonable way for us to respond.
	If I may, I will take a couple of minutes to address one or two of the particular points that have been made. It is important that other Parliaments have recognised these events as genocide, but that is a matter of principle for them and, understandably, such decisions cannot be internationally binding. However, we will try to investigate what is behind them. As has been said, we have not been able to recognise the Iraqi criminal tribunal’s decision to see these events as genocide. The Government consider legal judgments by appropriate courts in deciding whether such atrocities should be designated as an act of genocide, but the judgment of the Iraqi criminal tribunal was that of a national tribunal.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Harlow both referred to the Dutch court. We have examined this issue carefully and we are happy to look again at the Dutch court of appeal’s decision in the van Anraat case, but we understand that although the court considered the question, it concluded that there was not a genocide. We understand that Mr van Anraat
	was convicted for complicity in war crimes. In a sense, that is a detail; the point is made and we need to look at how these matters might be dealt with.
	In conclusion, a debate such as this is particularly painful, as we all know that even as we speak someone, somewhere in the world, is being killed, not because of anything that they may have done but simply because of who they are. They are being killed on the basis of their clan, their faith or their ethnicity; above all, this is happening simply because of their otherness. The ability of people to stamp some grotesque caricature of power or superiority over others through violence and torture is an unsated appetite. All too often that is made still worse by the inability of others ever to do enough, or even to do anything, to prevent it.
	We may differ on our view of how atrocities such as those visited upon Iraq’s Kurds come to be designated, but I made it clear that I share the view of all hon. Members that Iraq’s Kurds suffered a terrible and prolonged injustice under the previous Iraqi regime. Accordingly, as we approach the 25th anniversary of the appalling atrocities perpetrated against the Kurds at Halabja and elsewhere, it is important that we take a minute to reflect on the suffering caused and to reflect with some shame on that phrase “never again”. However, we need to find, somewhere in our remembrance and recognition of the past, a more meaningful way to confront the horrors that form the raw material of the senseless killing that occurs throughout the world all too regularly.

Nadhim Zahawi: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I say that I feel like a bit of an imposter standing here today, because so many colleagues, both in this Chamber and in the other place, have done so much more for the Kurdish cause, not least the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)? I recall that when I was a student at University college London she attended one of the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq protests on behalf of the Kurdish and Iraqi people. That was a time that aroused my passion to do something about what was taking place in Iraq and in Kurdistan.
	We heard a powerful speech from the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Indeed, it is a real privilege to be a Member in this Chamber when such speeches are delivered, and to be able to listen to them live. He spoke eloquently about the plight of the Kurdish people all over the region, and especially about those in Turkey. I attended the AK party congress in Turkey as a representative of my own party, and it was extraordinary when Prime Minister Erdogan invited the president of the Kurdish regional government, Massoud Barzani, to address the congress in Kurdish, live on Turkish television. That was an extraordinary moment, but there is more to do in that country to bring peace to the Kurdish people there. I am pleased to hear that the talks with Abdullah Öcalan are proceeding with pace.
	We have heard from my colleague, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who sits on the Backbench Business Committee and who declared an interest because of his passion for the Kurdish people. He told the House about his work with the trade union movement, and I know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) are both passionate about
	trade unionism. Indeed, my hon. Friend and I visited the Kurdish United Workers union together on one of our trips to Kurdistan, and we could see how the union movement was flourishing in Erbil.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) told the House about the psyche of the Kurdish people, saying they were a proud nation, not a nation of victims. He told us about the diaspora of Kurdish people around the world who are watching us having this debate here today. He also described how the Kurdish regional government were pressing the Baghdad Government to join the International Criminal Court, to ensure that such atrocities never happened again.
	My partner in crime is the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn). She and I led a delegation of more than 90 British businesses to Kurdistan last year. I had to be recalled to Parliament by my Whips to vote on a European matter here, but she stood in for me and proudly opened a fair with the president of Kurdistan and the then Prime Minister, Barham Salih. The hon. Lady spoke powerfully and eloquently today about the video of the Kurdish and Iraqi people selling their consciences to Saddam Hussein because they were living in fear, and about the children who were living with cancer through no fault of their own.
	I spoke in my opening remarks about the town of Halabja. Survivors of the crimes that took place there are here in the Gallery today—men, women and children who lived through the terrible attacks. We owe it to them to declare those events to be what they truly were: a genocide.
	One thing I will never forget is my visit with Lord Archer in 1991 to the Barzani town of Qush Tappa. When we entered the town, we were met by 8,000 women—wives, mothers, sisters and grandmothers. All wore black; all were in mourning for the disappearance of every male in the town.
	Today, the Foreign Secretary is in Rome attempting to save the Syrian people from indiscriminate killing by another Ba’athist regime, that of Bashar al-Assad. What a message it would send to the world if, while our nation was seeking to protect those who were still suffering, we were also able to recognise those who have suffered already. This Parliament is approaching its 750th birthday. What a message it would send if the mother of all Parliaments were to recognise and endorse the motion. That is why I am here today to call for this motion to be passed.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House formally recognises the genocide against the people of Iraqi Kurdistan; encourages governments, the EU and UN to do likewise; believes that this will enable Kurdish people, many in the UK, to achieve justice for their considerable loss; and further believes that it would enable the UK, the home of democracy and freedom, to send out a message of support for international conventions and human rights, which is made even more pressing by the slaughter in Syria and the possible use of chemical arsenals.

HEALTH CARE (SUTTON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Paul Burstow: I am grateful for this opportunity to address the House and to explain to it and to the Minister the disaster that is playing out in slow motion in the NHS in south-west London. I am talking, of course, about a programme named the “Better Services, Better Value” programme, which was launched by the south-west London primary care trust cluster two years ago. BSBV was set up to address concerns about quality and patient safety. The argument is that London should lead the way to all-consultant rotas to guarantee better care.
	Taken at face value, no one could argue with that proposition. We all want great care, and we all want the safest and best care for ourselves, our families and our constituents. BSBV’s answer to this quality challenge, however, is a grandiose reconfiguration of acute care costing over £350 million. It proposes the centralisation of emergency care, maternity and paediatric care on fewer hospital sites in south-west London. The result is the loss of two A and E departments, two maternity units, three paediatric units and other associated services.
	Despite quality and safety concerns being the driving force, actual quality today has been discounted. It is assumed that quality will improve, but there is no explanation or evidence to justify the assumption that those things that are not good now will necessarily become better in the future. How that can be made to happen has not been spelled out.
	I have to tell the Minister that BSBV is causing huge damage to the NHS in south-west London. It is dividing medical opinion and demoralising staff in hospitals such as my own St Helier hospital. It is also distracting the NHS from the much bigger task of delivering the productivity and quality gains needed to meet the Nicholson challenge. In the wake of the Francis report, it is clear that BSBV has not considered the impact of forced reconfiguration on patient safety. That must be a risk, and it should be properly evaluated and taken into consideration.
	I said that BSBV had come up with a grandiose solution. At the top of every list BSBV draws up comes my local hospital, the St Helier hospital. My constituents are being expected to travel for longer and further because of a dogma—that greater specialisation on fewer hospital sites improves outcomes. Last year, however, a paper in the Health Service Management Researchjournal examined the evidence to support this dogma. Anthony Harrison of the King’s Fund reviewed a large number of studies, some of which were commissioned for the Department, and concluded that there was no evidence of a causal link between volume and outcomes. BSBV, however, relies on that dogma, and tries to shame anyone who argues against it by painting opponents as being “opposed” or in a position of being prepared to support and tolerate poorer outcomes.
	As I say, this view is being advanced without evidence. There is some evidence that greater specialisation may well save lives—I do not dispute that—and the reorganisation of hyper-acute stroke care and major trauma across London appears to be a case in point.
	Those are examples where it certainly makes a difference and they have made a difference across London. It is important, however, that we await the results of studies of how those improvements have been secured before we claim to have a full understanding of all the factors that have played a part in delivering the gains that have been realised.
	Although BSBV advances its view of the benefits of centralisation, it fails to examine some of the important downsides. Shockingly, the proponents of BSBV ignore evidence demonstrating a link between mortality and miles travelled to gain access to emergency care. There is as much as a 1% increase in mortality for every extra mile travelled. They ignore evidence showing that St Helier has one of the safest maternity units in London—a unit at which mums want to have their babies. They also fail to consider the benefits of retaining A and E, maternity and paediatric services at St Helier to ensure that the NHS has the capacity to meet rising demand. Demand is rising—birth rates are rising and the number of people needing hospital services is, too.
	In pursuit of this dogma, wildly optimistic assumptions are manufactured about the extent to which demand for emergency care can be shifted out of hospital or avoided altogether. Those involved assume, for example, that 10% of A and E attendances can be avoided and that up to 60% of such admissions can be shifted to urgent care, but the evidence for that is weak and is contested by emergency care experts. There is, in fact, a growing body of empirical evidence that calls into question some of the diversion schemes that have been set in place. Even the National Clinical Advisory Team’s evaluation of BSBV last summer questioned the assumptions and urged caution. NCAT says that
	“experience elsewhere has shown that on implementation not all of the planned shifts in flow are met.”
	It suggests that a more realistic assumption is that about 30% of A and E patients will be shifted to urgent care. More damaging still, its independent assessment warns that the data used to make the assumptions are recognised in emergency care to “lack reliability.”
	Yet those flawed assumptions are at the heart of BSBV’s grand design. I think that they pose a significant risk to the safety of patients, a risk made worse because those in charge of the programme have not even worked out how to deliver the step change in out-of-hospital care on which their heroic assumptions rely. Nor have they worked out how much it might cost to deliver the changes in primary and community health care. The reports of both NCAT and the gateway review comment on that glaring gap in the BSBV case. NCAT says:
	“At present attention is focused on hospital reconfiguration. There should be at least as much concern shown to the developments in primary and community care which are essential prerequisites of that hospital reorganisation.”
	The same zeal for centralisation runs through the proposals for maternity services. Although St Helier’s maternity unit is performing above the average in south-west London, although more than 3,400 mums are choosing to have their babies at St Helier every year, and despite welfare and health inequality concerns about women giving birth in more remote locations, those in charge of BSBV are proposing the break-up of an excellent maternity and paediatric team. Again, the evidence calls that zeal into doubt.
	I said that BSBV was a distraction from the big challenge facing the NHS—the Nicholson £20 billion challenge, which was identified by the Department of Health back in 2008. The NHS in south-west London has drawn up plans to find £394 million for quality and productivity improvements out of a budget of £2.4 billion by 2016. The money that it frees up will be used to meet rising demand and improve quality. No one disputes the fact that it will be a tough programme to deliver, and I must tell the Minister that BSBV is not helping. In fact, it delivers very little for the Nicholson challenge: just £18 million. Is all the pain that BSBV is inflicting worth it? Those involved in BSBV want to spend a projected £350 million in capital in order to realise that £18 million. I calculate that, according to BSBVs figures, it will take more than 20 years to get a payback on that capital investment. BSBV’s purpose is to tackle quality and safety concerns which we all want to be tackled, to fix consultant rotas, and to deal with other related issues. According to its own figures, that will cost between £4 million and £7 million.
	Has not a “do the minimum” or “do the least harm” option been drawn up to find ways of delivering the benefits without all the costs of BSBV’s grand design? No such plan has been developed. To date, those in charge of BSBV have spent £5.5 million. They plan to spend £6 million more this year, and to spend a further £2 million every year while the programme continues. Surely there is a saving to be made there.
	We have a grand design in search of a justification: a classic old-fashioned, top-down London NHS-inspired reconfiguration. The goal has been to reach decisions before the old NHS structures are abolished at the end of March, tying the hands of the new GP-led clinical commissioning groups. Yet last year, during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it was made clear that there would be new ways of designing health care, and that things would be different. The new design was to be based on a detailed analysis of the current and future needs of the local population, an analysis that would underpin the development of local health and wellbeing strategies which, in turn, would be reflected in the commissioning plans of councils and clinical commissioning groups. The last analysis of that kind that was conducted in my area, in 2009, did not support a wholesale change in acute care, but BSBV is trying to drive a coach and horses through that. Rather than designing services that fit its postcode, it is trying to shoehorn south-west London into its template.
	Because BSBV has so clearly predetermined the fate of St Helier, it has caused planning blight. It has derailed the de-merger of Epsom and St Helier hospitals by causing huge uncertainty about the future of both. BSBV has jeopardised the hard-won £219 million rebuild and refurbishment of St Helier hospital, despite the former chief executive of NHS South West London repeatedly stating that this was a fixed point. That blight could be lifted today if the Minister made it clear that it was no part of the Government’s design to allow the old institutions of the NHS—primary care trusts and strategic health authorities—to dictate how the new GP-led clinical commissioning groups act. Furthermore, can the Minister confirm that the NHS Commissioning Board is under a duty to secure the autonomy of CCGs, and that she rejects any recreation of the top-down
	culture and will ensure that CCGs are empowered to arrange local health care that fits and anticipates the needs of their populations?
	I do not underestimate the difficulties that CCGs face in resolving how best to arrange health care services in Epsom, Merton and Sutton, but it is clear that BSBV does not offer a credible mechanism for meeting the challenges. As the principal commissioners of services at the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, the Sutton, Merton and Surrey Downs CCGs should be able to shape acute health services for the future. They must be able to commission those services in a way that the three local health and wellbeing boards believe to be right, unfettered by any legacies from the outgoing health commissioners.
	I hope that, as the new commissioners of acute and community health services, my local CCGs will take the opportunity arising from the current delay in the BSBV programme to bring it to an end. A clean break from this flawed process will be a clear signal from the CCGs that there will be a fresh start, and that they want to engage with the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust and the local community, local councils and MPs to map out a future for acute health services that has community and clinical support.
	In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm the following: first, that the local clinical commissioning groups are free to scrap BSBV; secondly, that a “do minimum” option is a must-do when it comes to reconfigurations; and thirdly that the Department of Health will take a close and critical look at this old-style, top-down reconfiguration from BSBV. BSBV is based on flawed assumptions and poor data, and it is time to stop wasting money on this discredited process. We need a fresh start in south-west London, not tired, old, worn-out NHS reconfiguration of the very worst sort. I hope the Minister can help.

Anna Soubry: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) for his long service and the great work he did as a Department of Health Minister and for securing this debate. He has made a number of very good and important points—although I do not agree with everything he said—and I assure him that my officials will read his speech, and if I fail to respond to any of his points now, we will write to him. He has asked a number of questions, and I may not be able to answer all of them—and strongly suspect I will not be able to give the sort of answers he would like.
	My right hon. Friend is standing up for his constituents’ health services, which is absolutely right. It is right that Members come to the House and speak up on behalf of their constituents. On hospitals and health care services, at the end of the day we all want the same thing: the very best services for our constituents. Everyone is entitled to the very best health services.
	As my right hon. Friend will know, it is not my role to defend or to rubbish the “Better Services, Better Value” process. He has made some very good points, but I have no doubt that it was set up for the very best of reasons. There are no proposals at this stage, but there is a huge consultation stage. I am told the underlying reason for setting up the BSBV was to ensure that everyone in south-west London and Surrey Downs has the very best health services seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
	A number of hon. Members who represent the area covered by the review have rightly made representations. Some, like my right hon. Friend, have spoken in this House. He has also been to see me, as have others, including my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), is coming to see me next week. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke in the most recent debate on the future of A and E services, which was held only a few weeks ago. I shall refer to some of those speeches.
	The area affected by the reconfiguration covers south-west London and the Surrey Downs. South-west London has a population of 1.4 million, the Surrey Downs have a population of 280,000 and between them they enjoy a health service that is funded to the tune of £2.8 billion a year. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has made clear, although much of this is about saving money and meeting the Nicholson challenge —a scheme introduced under the previous Government and supported at the time by both Opposition parties, and one that continues because we recognise that those savings must be carried through—this is not about cuts. If anybody makes that case, as I have said before, they do no service to anybody or to the debate. This is not about brutal cuts but about trying to deliver the best service for people throughout the whole area seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he presented the Francis report to this place and answered various questions on it, gave an answer that we should all remember. I have used it before, but let me repeat it now. He said:
	“Let me refer again…to one of the things that may need to change in our political debate. If we are really going to put quality and patient care upfront”—
	which is something on which we all agree—
	“we must sometimes look at the facts concerning the level of service in some hospitals and some care homes, and not always—as we have all done, me included”—
	and it includes me, too—
	“reach for the button that says ‘Oppose the local change”’.—[Official Report, 6 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 288.]
	I agree with those words. We are all beholden, whatever part we play in reconfiguring and reorganising health services, to ensure that we do not have an immediate knee-jerk reaction to oppose change. I am not saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has done that, but others have. Change is the right vehicle and the right driver to ensure that the people of this country get the best services.
	To explain how difficult it is to make a reconfiguration, let me refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden in the recent debate on A and E services. She said:
	“My local NHS says it needs to reconfigure services because it has to deliver £370 million of savings each year—a reduction of around 24%, or how much it costs each year to keep St Helier hospital going. A programme has been set up, laughingly called “Better Services, Better Value”, to decide which of four local hospitals—St Helier, St George’s, Kingston or Croydon—should lose its A and E department. That is despite the fact that, across south-west London, the number of people going to A and E is
	going up by 20%, and that the birth rate in our part of London continues to rise.”—[ Official Report , 7 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 515.]
	That is another hon. Member who would join my right hon. Friend in opposing any changes, cuts, closures and so on at St Helier.

Paul Burstow: The Minister is responding fully to the points I have made so far, but let me demonstrate the distinction between my point and that made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). She has conflated the BSBV programme, which is a reconfiguration, with the Nicholson challenge. The Nicholson challenge is being taken forward separately in south London and BSBV does not deliver on it.

Anna Soubry: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend because I was going to agree with him that the hon. Lady’s analysis was not correct. The point that I am trying to make is that she seeks to defend her hospital, as my right hon. Friend does. She does not want changes that in any way undermine her hospital, and she makes that case with some passion. It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central, who also took part in that debate, made a speech that completely contradicted what the hon. Lady had said.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Anna Soubry: That is a peculiar, old-fashioned procedure, but none the less valuable and enjoyable, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central argued in the same debate in favour of the BSBV review on the basis that, according to one of the many reports that form part of the review, Croydon Health Services NHS Trust—in other words, his hospital—should have 16 whole-time equivalent consultants, but it has 4.9; St Helier should have 12 but has 4.5; Kingston hospital NHS trust should have 16 but has 10; and St George’s should have at least 16 but has 21. That suggests that departments across south-west London, with the exception of the one at St George’s, do not have anything like the recommended level of consultant cover. He went on, as we might imagine because he, too, wants the very best for his hospital and his constituents, to make the case that BSBV would deliver exactly what he wants for his constituency.

Paul Burstow: The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) made some important points in that debate, but he did not go on to make the key point that when we look at the figures for BSBV, we see that the cost of delivering the improvement that he and I both want is between £4 million and £7 million, yet under BSBV £350 million would be spent to do that.

Anna Soubry: All I can say is, a good point well made, and move on towards my concluding remarks.
	My right hon. Friend has asked me a number of questions. If I do not reply in full, I assure him that I will in a letter. I am told that a “do minimum” option should exist. I know that he knows this, because he was a Minister in the Department of Health, but I want to remind everyone that, for this scheme or any reconfiguration scheme to go forward to full public consultation, it has to pass four tests that were clearly laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) when he was Secretary of State for Health. The four tests are support from GP commissioners, strengthened public and patient engagement, clear clinical evidence and support for patient choice.
	In conclusion, I shall deal with my right hon. Friend’s three final questions. I am told that a “do minimum” option should exist. In relation to whether CCGs are free to withdraw from the process, I think it is important that I read out what I am told; I do not want ever to be accused of not saying things I have been advised on. I am told that local CCGs are already a key to BSBV. However, and perhaps more important, after 1 April CCGs will be in the driving seat and by definition BSBV would be unable to continue without their support. That would seem extremely obvious.

Paul Burstow: That is very helpful. Given that CCGs will be in the driving seat from 1 April, does that mean they can hit the ejector button and get BSBV out?

Anna Soubry: I do not know the answer to that, and of course I would not put it in those terms, but I shall make further inquiries and certainly write to my right hon. Friend so that he has a proper and full answer to that very important question, which I have no doubt many other right hon. and hon. Members would like to ask in relation to other reconfigurations, notably in the south of England.
	My right hon. Friend’s other question, in effect, was: would someone at the Department of Health look at BSBV? As he knows, from 1 April the NHS Commissioning Board will have responsibility for determining whether the four tests have been met, prior to a public consultation on BSBV. The Secretary of State only becomes involved quite some way down the line. I will not—I nearly said I was going to bore you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I would not dream of doing such a thing. However, the intervention of the Secretary of State can only occur much later down the line, when the matter has been referred to him by the overview and scrutiny committee of any local authority, by way of an independent reconfiguration panel, and so on.
	As I said, my right hon. Friend has raised some important points. If they have not been addressed by me, they will be by way of a letter. I congratulate him again on having secured the debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.